Scientology Homophobia

There has been considerable discussion about this. In today’s world, where it is no longer socially acceptable to be anti-gay, scientology has taken steps to attempt to portray itself as tolerant and welcoming of the LGBT community. But similar to scientology’s claims that disconnection “doesn’t exist” or is simply a “personal choice,” the PR smokescreen hides an ugly and unpleasant reality.

At its heart, scientology IS very homophobic.

Here is the truth as I experienced it, growing up in scientology and then being a senior official in the church for many years.

Let’s start at the beginning, where all else starts in scientology, with Hubbard’s Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health.

This is perhaps the first statement by Hubbard about homosexuality:

The sexual pervert (and by this term dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in Dynamic II such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc. and all down the catalogue of Ellis and Krafft-Ebing) is actually quite ill physically. Perversion as an illness has so many manifestations that it must be spread through the entire gamut of classes from (1) to (5) above.

But the concept of the sexual pervert was expanded in his next book, Science of Survival, where homosexuality (sexual perversion and deviation) was placed on his Tone Scale at 1.1 “Covert Hostility.”

1.1 people are the scourge of society according to SOS.

In the book is this infamous passage:

There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow. Adders are safe bedmates compared to people on the lower bands of the tone scale. Not all the beauty nor the handsomeness nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the vicious damage such people do to sane men and women. The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered. It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line — a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred — or simply quarantining them from the society. A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.

Though I don’t believe you should read this as a literal admonition to eradicate those “below 2.0” – it does inform scientologists in how to think about such people. According to Hubbard, they should be treated like lepers. They are certainly not “the able” which, according to Hubbard, is who scientology is for.

And let’s not forget that the words of L. Ron Hubbard in the eyes of scientologists may NOT be changed or even queried. Everything he says is accepted unthinkingly as truth. To doubt the veracity of his statements is to put yourself into a “lower condition” and be treated as an “enemy.”

He shortly thereafter published Handbook for Preclears in which he explained homosexuality thusly:

Homosexuality comes from this manifestation and from the manifestation of life continuation for others. A boy whose mother is dominant will try to continue her life from any failure she has. A girl whose father is dominant will try to continue his life from any failure he has. The mother or the father were cause in the child’s eyes. The child elected himself successor to cause. Break this life continuum concept by running sympathy and grief for the dominant parent and then run off the desires to be an effect and their failures and the homosexual is rehabilitated. Homosexuality is about 1.1 on the tone scale. So is general promiscuity.

This is the first reference to “auditing out” homosexuality and perhaps the only place where he specifically states homosexuality is about 1.1 on the Tone Scale.

This is the genus of the concept that homosexuality can be “handled in auditing.” It is no longer considered acceptable to say such a thing, but it is how scientologists view the world. Being below 2.0 on the Tone Scale is non-survival. Auditing will raise you on the Tone Scale and rid you of your “negative emotions” and “irrational behavior” — very specifically including your tendencies towards perversion. I am aware of more than one person who has been given an auditing program to “address their homosexuality.” (Some may argue that this is what the pc or pre-OT “wants handled” and it is not up to the auditor and C/S to determine the morality of such things, but the very fact that this is the “think” — that homosexuality CAN be addressed with auditing — demonstrates it is considered to be an “aberration.”)

For many years, scientology made little or no attempt to defend these fundamental beliefs — because they were not really an issue. But over the last two decades there has been a lot more pressure to accept homosexuality and afford gay people the same rights as everyone else.

Scientology, and scientologists, have sought to change their image on the subject to appear to be “gay friendly.” They will try to explain that it is natural that Hubbard put gays into the 1.1 band as back in the 50’s they could not be “overtly” gay — they had to be “covert” and hide their identities, and thus they were “covert.” But it does not actually explain the entire concept of 1.1 which is covert HOSTILITY and ‘sexual perversion” – rape, child molesting and other things. Homosexuality was labeled a 1.1 trait not because they were hiding, but because they were “perverts” engaged in sex for other reasons than procreation. Nor does it explain why the statements have not been removed from the books like some of his other things (marijuana is safer than alcohol for instance).

There are plenty more references to homosexuality in the scripture of scientology:

HCOB 25 FEB 1960 THE MODEL SESSION

To get the pc over any condition or aberration that he is agonizing to get rid of, find a terminal that adds up to it and run single confront on that terminal.

Example: If the pc is sick, the process would be “What about a sick person could you confront?”

If the person is homo, it’s “What about a homosexual could you confront?”

And of course, the infamous (and still very much used) “Joburg” sec check, including all questions about sexual activities to give a flavor of where homosexuality was placed in the pantheon of bad sex acts:

HCOB 7 APR 1961 JOHANNESBURG CONFESSIONAL

Have you ever raped anyone?

Have you ever been involved in an abortion?

Have you assisted in any abortion?

Have you ever committed adultery?

Have you ever practised Homosexuality?

Have you ever had intercourse with a member of your family?

Have you ever been sexually unfaithful? Have you ever practised Sodomy?

Have you ever consistently made a practice of sexual perversion?

Have you ever slept with a member of a race of another colour?

And the same with a standardized sec check that was published a decade late:

HCOB 24 DEC 72 THE BASIC INTEGRITY LIST

Have you ever raped anyone?

Have you ever been involved in an abortion?

Have you ever committed adultery?

Have you ever practiced homosexuality?

Have you ever had intercourse with a member of your family?

Have you ever been sexually unfaithful?

Have you ever made a practice of sexual perversion?

Hubbard never changed his attitude towards homosexuality. Homosexuals were depicted as degenerate perverts in his last fiction writing Mission Earth.

His attitude about sex in general became even more strident and bizarre in virtually the last HCOB (26 August 1982) he wrote for scientologists which is entitled Pain and Sex. This writing is not presented as figurative, it is intended to be taken literally, and is based on L. Ron Hubbard’s vast knowledge of all things.

Destructive creatures who do not want people big or reaching—since they are terrified of punishment due to their crimes—invented pain and sex to shrink people and cut their alertness, knowingness, power and reach. Thus you see people who are «experiencing» either pain or sex introverting and not producing much.

Pain and sex were the INVENTED tools of degradation. Believe it or not, a being can be so overwhelmed by either, that he or she becomes an addict of it. Priests become flagellants and cut themselves to pieces with self-whipping. Torturers drool over pain. Lovers are very seldom happy. People do the most irrational things when overcharged with sex and prostitutes use it as a knowing stock-in-trade. Combined, pain and sex make up the insane JackThe-Rippers (who killed only prostitutes) and the whole strange body of sex—murder freaks, including Hinckley, and the devotees of late night horror movies.

Under the false data of the psychs (who have been on the track a long time and are the sole cause of decline in this universe) both pain and sex are gaining ground in this society and, coupled with robbery which is a hooded companion of both, may very soon make the land a true jungle of crime. Go into an asylum or a prison and look at the increasing institutional population and know what you are looking at. In the main, there are pain and sex addicts, decadent and degraded and no longer capable.

But, let’s turn to the practice of the church.

You probably recall the church’s support of Proposition 8 in California was the beginning of the end of Paul Haggis in scientology. That in turn led to a piece in the New Yorker, and thanks to Tommy Davis’ deft handling of the matter, to a book by Lawrence Wright and from there the film Going Clear. Paul Haggis discusses these events in the film, but in far more detail in the original Lawrence Wright piece in the New Yorker. It was all about his disgust that the church was supporting a proposition that discriminated against gays.

But what about what goes on behind the facade the church presents to the outside world?

Here, to borrow a favorite expression of an old friend, the cheese becomes more binding.

You are not qualified to join the Sea Org if you are gay. Period.

You are not qualified to join the Sea Org if you have an “extensive history” of “homosexual acts” even if you claim you are not “gay.”

In fact, this is so well known that people have blown off Sea Org recruiters by claiming they are gay. They are dropped like hot potatoes.

Actually, they are dropped if they have “gay thoughts.”

Used to be “I’ve taken LSD” was the instant Get Out Of Jail Free card with SO recruiters, but LSD has fallen out of favor and recruiters figured out how to ask a ton of questions and determine “that wasn’t really LSD you took” in their desperation to get people signed up and routed onto the EPF. Nothing you can do about someone who is gay “well, we have determined the other person was not really male/female”?

If you are IN the Sea Org and profess to be gay or have “homosexual tendencies” it is a one way ticket to the RPF (or out of the SO altogether). Nora Crest has told her story, there are dozens of similar ones. Again, the concept of sending someone to the RPF for “being gay” is based on the idea they can be “rehabilitated.”

But this is not limited to the Sea Org.

Executive and HCO qualifications in any scientology organization require that you have no history of “perverted 2D activities.” And that most definitely includes “homosexual activities.”

And finally, there is this.

The self-titled ecclesiastical leader of the scientology religion, and the biggest being and bestest scientologist in the whole universe, is viciously homophobic.

David Miscavige relishes denigrating gays, one of his favorite terms of hatred is “faggot.”

For at least 20 years he has accused senior scientology officials (most often Marc Yager and Guillaume Lesevre, but many others too) of being “butt fuckers” and “cocksuckers” and loves to regale his circle of sycophants with extremely graphic and lewd descriptions of the sexual activities they supposedly engage in. He delights in doing this especially when the people themselves are present, and he talks about them to the others gathered around “oohing” and “aahing” as if they were not present. One of his favorite things to say to Marc Yager when he stumbled or mumbled a response was “get Guilluame’s cum out of your mouth and you might be able to talk better.” And of course, there his now infamous “code” he texted me: YSCOHB.

You may wonder if I am exaggerating. Not in the slightest. In fact, in an effort to maintain some decorum, this is a VERY mild version. There are plenty of people who have witnessed this numerous times including Jeff Hawkins, Amy Scobee, Tom DeVocht, Dan Koon, Marc and Claire Headley and a LOT of others.

It is simply impossible for scientology to be tolerant when it’s undisputed leader is perhaps the worst homophobe I have ever met.

PS: I should add that though I grew up with the idea that you should always be wary of 1.1s and the easiest “1.1s” to spot were homosexuals, I have a very different view today . I have quite a number of LGBT friends and they are among the most creative, compassionate and genuinely nice people I know. And they are uniformly oh so NON judgmental about the personal choices of others. Discrimination is a pet peeve of mine I hate it in any form. I grew up in the 60s with the stigma of being a scientologist when it was about like being gay. Funny how I resented being treated differently but had the mindset that others “deserved” it….

Gays are expelled for their “overts”. Just ask Billy Khan. He was a gay Jewish boy from NYC and a Top Sea Org recruiter for PAC circa 1976-79. He was Declared SP and expelled after being forced to write up all his O/Ws and in them he confessed to visiting hundreds of porn shops where he would give and receive thousands of blow jobs during his three years traveling around the country recruiting naive people by convincing them to sign billion year contracts. He was charged with using his position and church money for personal pleasures. Wonder how many lawyers have similar “high crimes”?

Unecessary? I admire you Mike for all what you do. Really, your revelations on Miscavige showed me really the scene and helped me to leave the Church. Miscavige is the target. I understand also that Hubbard had some serious flaws, but my God, how can somebody could say that Hubbard wanted to exterminate homosexual? It’s so bloody madly crazy statement.
It’s an opinion? It’s horrible slander based on absolutely no fact.
Ok, it seems that you don’t care, I don’t care too really. But I hate lies, and this is why I hate Miscavige, RTC and all. But to say such a lie on Hubbard give me exactly the same reaction.

It’s not a slander. It’s a fact based on his own words. He wrote it in Diarrhetics. He wrote it in Science of Survival. Didn’t you read Mike’s article?

You take insults to Hubbard personally (which, by the way, is a major psychological problem worthy of a full article). I take threats to eliminate, quietly and without sorrow, me and members of my tribe personally. Hubbard and his works need to be destroyed. Whether or not you join those works is up to you.

Dear FG, I wrote a very detailed and well researched comment about this, but no matter what I do and what I use (whether Android or a computer) , the comment/post never goes through. So, I just stopped bothering. It is a pitty ; it took me a lot of time to write it. It would have presented and explained many angles which were neglected here is this discussion. Perhaps another time.

FG, never mind the ones who fixate so rigidly to those quotes w/out properly evaluating the hostorical/cultural context on which they were created.

LRH is not exactly the saint of my devotion, and is guilty of many, many things, but not of personally mistreating others because of their sexual preferences. If ANYONE here including Mike has an actual instance where they personally witnessed LRH doing that, then I am all ears , and please provide the evidence for that.

The best way to know LRH the man as regards to that is by inspecting his personal C/Ses (Case Supervisor written instructions). I’ve studied them ALL ; the Psychotic Research Cases C/Ses, the Exp DNs C/Ses, and the class 8 course C/Ses. There isn’t not one single example of LRH on those C/Ses where he mistreated in any way, any PC with homosexual tendencies or acts, either by sending them to Ethics or by designing a program to get them “straight”. I know of no example where LRH ever did that.

I know many examples of “attacking the dissenters and critics of Scn, of attacking psychiatry, of using disconnection and fair gaming practices, of being totally authoritarian , of lying, of exaggerating what Scn can actually do for others, of being a self-righteous asshole. But I know of no example where LRH , either personally or through his instructions , attempted to suppress anyone or mistreat him just because he was different in his sexual preferences. In auditing others and C/Sing, LRH stuck to and followed his “Second Dynamic Rule” HCOB/PL , which I don’t know why was ommitted in the quotes presented in Mike’s article.

And I know of no example neither of LRH doing ANYTHING at all to “quietly dispose of” alleged “down-toned” individuals. Zero, nada, zip. That infamous and isolated SOS quote have been used so many times to make a case against LRH while totally neglecting others that contradict it , and while totally neglecting actual ACTIONS , that it is obvious to me that many individuals using it already had decided that LRH was guilty w/out a proper “trial”. I believe in fair trails, not in witch-hunts , not matter if LRH himself was guilty of witch-hunt. That he did it, is no justicication to do it to him if we are to be better than him, and want to became an example for others about what a fair trial consist of.

By 1950 and almost up to 2003 , homosexuality was considered a crime ; period. And probably 95% (or more) of the population (which include MOST of us here) saw it as an aberration and mental disorder. Homosexuality was even a capital offense in many countries around the world.The “Sodomy Laws” that the USA inherited from England since several centuries ago , considered annal sex and oral sex as a crime punishable by jail. The target of such laws was obviously, mainly the homosexual sector.

Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder by the World Health Organization up to 1990 , up to 1973 by the American Psychological. , Association, and up to 1975 by the American Psychiatric Association, but those changes were not brought about by actual research, but by political pressures from many gay activists which even used intimidation and threats towards many psychiatrists in order for them to agree to eliminate homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). But secretly, most psychiatrists and psychologists believed firmly that homosexuality WAS a disorder of personality.

By the late 70s only 3 states had repealed their Sodomy Laws, and it was not until 2003 that all the states had already repealed such laws. But it was a rather slow and long process. It took several decades after the decision to declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder for the society to start having a different viewpoint about homosexuality. Many legal battles were fought, many protests (pacific and not quite pacific) by pro-gay activists ocurred around the globe , and a lot of clinical research was done in order to bring about this new perspective that many now have about homosexuals. WE were ourselves a product of that social evolution, as most of us were misguided in our own beliefs and attitude towards the LGTB community to the point of, specially by men, make a lot of bad jokes about them.

So let’s stop this pretense that we are so civilized now, and can’t possible understand how it is that a man (from the 1950-1980 period) thought about homosexuality as an aberration and perversion ; 95+ % of the population did. W/out trying to offend here, this is even a little hypocritical.

I don’t care if LRH thought that homosexuality was a perversion or an aberration , he was expected to by the indoctrination of his time. What I only care about is, are there specific HCOPLs where LRH classify homosexuality as a crime to be handled per the Justice codes and Ethics system? Is there ANY LRH issue that clearly states that an homosexual individual is to be denied auditing and/or processing until his “situation” is handled ? The answer to those Qs is “NO”. In auditing and C/Sing, “Second Dynamic Rules” HCOPL/HCOB applies and nothing else does.

I know about the SO qualification issue that Mike brought up, but I don’t know if those are based in actual FOs (Flag Orders). Regardless, let’s not forget the time where those issues originated from ; a period where homosexuality was considered a mental illness and was punishable by law through the sodomy laws. So disqualifying high ranking SO executives for homosexual tendencies is not that absurd around that time, and more so with Scn’s Church status. It was, back then, an Out-PR, out-security issue.

It is the same with Sec Checks. If homosexuality was considered an aberration and even a crime back then, then including it as a possible withhold was not that absurd neither. In fact, it was expected, as Sec Checks have NOTHING whatsoever with making anyone “moral” , it is basically about making someone auditable.

I judge others by their actions , not necessarily by what they write if they actually don’t follow it.

What we have here is the misguided “Standard Tech” concept getting in the way, and just plain robotic-fundamentalist Scientologists literally and misguidedly interpreting LRH’s issues. Scn got stuck in time, and never evolved ; never was changed to meet the modern needs and manners. It froze in time due to Standard Tech, and cult(ish) thinking. Any leader worth his name is expected to adapt to the changes /of the society , and to ajust the policies of his institution accordingly. But DM has never been a real leader.

Hi thetaclear, I read your post to FG.Reading it from the viewpoint of facts only that can be proven,I see that I personally have no hard proof that Ron wanted any gays eliminated etc.Or that auditing was used to change their orientation.But I can say Sec Checking made me crazy and less auditable,it did nothing good for me.However on the emotional side which is totally subjective as my experience albeit short and sweet,what Quentin and then Mary Sue went through after Quentin passed was horrible.I do not think Ron cared about how he was perceived ever.He did and said what made sense to him only.He did have a cruel side, but one does not always show that 100% all the time.His policies on blowing The Sea Org and RPF and the Hole and GO/I showed all that side to me.
Love to you and your beautiful Princess.I read all your posts and learn.With Forever Love Peter,Ann.

Thanks for the comm, dear Ann ; I fully understand what you mean, dear. Please see my reply to FG about the subject of Confessionals.They became the tool of degradation for many GO individuals. Confessionals were originally about getting others auditable, but then began to get used to “roll back” alleged “enemy lines” locating who dared to criticize LRH and/or Scn. They also became an imposition from LRH about what ought to represent an overt act. It became (even if it is usually thought of as the opposite) an imposed morality instead of an action of spiritual liberation as it had been used for centuries by Christianity. I explain why in my reply to FG.

It is a pity that Quentin and Mary Sue had to pay the price of being emotionally attached to LRH. I regret that.

Hi thetaclear, I want to thank you for your reply to me and your post to FG.Read both carefully and I am starting to get an understanding of what sec-checking is and is not.For me,learning this is like plunging into a million year old briar patch.All the tendrils wrap around and scratch my arms and legs,but if I keep going I start to see how I was part of this out-tech use of Tech regarding sec -checking and lists etc.It was used on me,no wonder I am messed up about auditing and meters!Anyway,I greatly appreciate the time you took to reply and if you need me for anything I’m there.Love Peter Always,Ann.

And Hitler never personally mistreated a Jew, TC. It doesn’t matter. Hubbard wrote what he wrote and never retracted or modified it, and his followers are following those words to this day, despite the social changes that have taken place in the last sixty years (it makes me proud to be by birth and residence a citizen of Illinois, which abolished its sodomy laws in 1962, five years before England and Wales and nine years before any other US state). When Hubbard’s language in DMSMH and SoS about LGBTs can be directly compared to what was said about Jews in Mein Kampf, which it can, you have a problem.

If it helps, I feel the same sort of passion about Scientology’s view of psychiatrists. I’m headed over to Mike’s article today on that subject to comment in order to keep this thread on topic.

I am jew and was a scientologist. And I feel offended that you can compare Hubbard and Hitler. Even if he was sometimes misguided Hubbard never advocate to exterminate anyone. Bring me one homosexual who was beaten because of Hubbard. Many members of my family were killed by the nazis, starting with my grand-parents.
But it’s true that Miscavige has something of Dr Goebbels!

Again, did you not read the actual article and the quotes from DMSMH and SoS? Hubbard stated straight out that if people below 2.0 on the Tone Scale cannot be raised up above 2.0 (and that includes LGBTs), they needed to be eliminated. That sure as hell sounds like advocacy of extermination to me, and what’s true for me is true, right?

As for homosexuals who were “beaten”, you’re choosing your words carefully, aren’t you? And “by Hubbard” rather than “because of Hubbard’s teachings”. You’re trying to get your way out of this semantically, and it’s not going to work. Your mental twisting can allow you to disregard the following:

Derek Bloch, who was tormented as a member of the Sea Org because he’s gay. He’s now trying to build a life with no support from family or the fake religion he grew up in.

Michael Pattinson, whose difficulty with being gay was preyed upon by the cult, with constant promises of Auditing The Gay Away all the way to OTVIII. He blew a half million dollars on Scientology’s promise of a Gay Cure. He’s now out and proud, and he’s got a book available, which you probably won’t read because “it’s entheta”.

John McMaster, Clear Number One, ostracized by Hubbard because of his sexuality and his popularity.

“Hubbard stated straight out that if people below 2.0 on the Tone Scale cannot be raised up above 2.0 (and that includes LGBTs), they needed to be eliminated.”

That is an false statement, Espiando. He said that “it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line — a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred — or simply quarantining them from the society.”

Those were the only those two recommendations – process or quarantine. He never used the word “eliminate” – and as you can see from the above sentence, the word “delete” simply meant to quarantine.

” And Hitler never personally mistreated a Jew, TC. It doesn’t matter. Hubbard wrote what he wrote and never retracted or modified it, and his followers are following those words to this day, despite the social changes that have taken place in the last sixty years.”

Now, come on Espiando ; Jews were considered below animals by Hitler, and if he never personally interacted with none, it was because for him there were like nothing, and actually an insult to even direct a comm to any of them. These 2 men can’t be compared in any way, shape or form. And he DID retracted about it with his “Second Dynamic Rules” HCOPL where he clearly said that he wasn’t interested in the sexual life of anyone save that it were directly affecting others.

As I said before, there ISN’T any LRH issue in existence where homosexuality falls into any type of crime to be handled in Ethics. There is no such issue. Neither any special auditing or Rundown directed at specifically handling the homosexual to get him/her to change his/her sexual preference. Let’s talk about facts, actual actions, please, and let’s stop fixating on one single point.

And no, the change in perspective has NOT been happening since the last 60 years ; the World Health Organization had homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1990 , only 25 years ago. By the late 70s only 3 states of the Union had repealed their sodomy laws. The social change you refer to is actually quite new, more close to the last 2 decades, definitively not the last 60 years. By the time LRH wrote those misguided issues homosexuality WAS considered a mental disorder and perversion ; PERIOD. That’s a FACT, not my opinion, dear Espi. Judge LRH for his actual crimes. 95+% of the population, including most of us here, shared LRH’s view on homosexuality at that time period. It is not fair and balanced for him to stand trail on that ; we ALL would have to stand trail on that as well.

LRH was misguided and destructive at many things ; I totally agree with that. But what is happening with the Church today are a direct result of fundamentalism and an idiotic literal interpretation of Scn scriptures, made worse by a failure from want-to-be leaders to bring Scn up to modern times.

Thank you your post Theta Clear. It really exactly put the truth there.
Ann, sec check on the very beginning were used to take off the PC’s withold to make sure he can be “in session”.
If you withold something then you have a hard time to be in session.
But very unfortunatly if you take a false read then the PC doesn’t release the charge, he creates a new one.
Auditors, especialy sec checker don’t really want to understand it (while its clearly quoted in any course) But the punishement attitude of homo spiens is bent on the direction to find wrongness. I cannot give you a full course on class 2 technology but the sec checks you received were certainly madly out tech. And if it was on OT eligibility, the concept of OT eligibility itself is antiscientology. It’s inspection before the fact. I suspect that this bulletin in 1982 was not written by Hubbard as it is completely opposed to anything he ever said.
The tech as practiced under Miscavige is highly criminal, its actually black scientology.

You are most welcome, dear FG. I agree, Sec Checks wasn’t about punishment or about getting anyone to become “moral” ; they were about getting others auditable. But on the hands of Hubbard(tomized) , robotic and cult(ish) individuals, it can become a tool of suppression, violation of Human Rights, and even humiliation.

There is an inherent flaw in Confessionals in that their Qs are based on what one man, namely LRH, thinks what a possible transgresion against a moral code is, which is rather arbitrary for one man to decide. This can even act as a wrong indication and an enforcement of reality, as what an overt is or is not, is decided by other-determinism.

Per Standard Tech, if a Sec Check question reads, and the PC is protesty or bewildered about it , one is supposed to check for “False Reads”. But a False Read in this context is a “shouldn’t have read” because the PC wasn’t guilty of committing that specific overt act and yet it read anyway, or the PC might have already gotten off this w/h at previous sessions and it wasn’t acked or accepted in some way (provided that he got it off completely w/out anything having remained undisclosed). A false read doesn’t means in Standard Tech, “it shouldn’t have read because I don’t think that such a question represents an actual overt act, as to me, it is quite all right doing such an act”. This is NOT what a False Read is in Standard Confessional Procedure. If a PC originates the above, rest assure that that confessional question WILL BE taken up to clean it to
F/N.

A “Supress read” or a “”Invalidate read” is an alleged transferred read from the confessional question to that specific button. Once one gets the PC to say what he had to say about that, then the original confessional question is taken up REGARDLESS if what the PC had suppressed or invalidated was that he thought that such a question didn’t represent an actual over from his perspective. He WILL BE harassed by the Security Checker until he confess and own up to that overt by getting off his “justifications” on it with probably (even thought this is not part of the standard HCOB on it , but something that a class VIII might think in doing) ) , “Why wasn’t it an overt ?”.

If any Church auditor accepted as a false read the protest of this PC as to his disagreement with that Sec Check question being an overt, he would probably lose his certs. If anyone on the Field runs it like that, then he might be doing the right thing, but that isn’t covered as LRH’s Standard Tech. If LRH wrote it, then it must have been an overt ; that’s EXACTLY how this is interpreted by PCs in general.

So, we may end up enforcing a reality on the PC, with a wrong indication acting as a wrong item on the list, with its destructive consequences. That is my thesis as to why Confessional Tech became so dangerous for many, lowering their tone level and making them PTS.

For me, Confessional Tech is very useful, but also inherently flawed, capable of being a double sword , as it doesn’t take into account the reality level of the individual. It allegedly does take it into account, as , it is claimed that subjects beyond the reality level of the PC won’t read , but I think (actually KNOW) that a read can be gotten on “this is not an overt to me”. And, “this is not an overt to me” isn’t handled as a False Read. If you or any other auditor has any specific LRH ref that contradict this assertion , then please quote it (with exact date and name) , and I would stand corrected.

So, what do I think would have been the correct way to go about this ?
Well, as a totally untested handling, I would get the PC to list (this won’t be Listing And Nulling) what actions HE (not LRH) considers to be overt acts on a certain area or sector of his life, specifically those sectors or areas where he is currently having difficuly with or has had for a long time. And I would write down the reading items. Then I would work ONLY with such items by convering them to Confessional questions. I would f/n each question, and then I would list again in a new unit of time for what the PC now considers to be overt acts, as by now he might have others things that previously were not overts for him. And I would f/n again each reading items. Somewhere along the line this area of difficulty would be straighten out to a marked degree with a major cog and ability gain on the area. And that’s the time to stop the procedure.

This new approach would always be taking into consideration what the PC himself considers to be an overt act; not what LRH or the auditor, or C/S considers it is. Then the chances for enforced reality, and wrong indications would be minimal.

Excellent developpement TC. You always amaze me with your sharpness, thorough knowledge of the tech, and ability to diffrentiate. Now, the idea that it is not an overt for the PC from his moral code, and that it reads on a protest, I have practiced it.

For exemple, a very classical one, I had a PC always having a wh on masturbation (not from a sec check, simple MWH). I did the false read handling, “Did anyone said you have a wh when you don’t have one?” Reading, Pc cheerful “yes myself !” Basically he himself didn’t see anything wrong with mastrubating… he was happy, it FNed. He actually got the consideration while himself auditing another PC on the WH of mastrubating.

I believe they are layers of moral codes plotted on the time track and on different entities surrounding or connected to the PC. So, to begin with the overt you audit maybe misown. Prior to scientology let say a girl experiment to be lesbian. It’s not she is a lesbian completely, but she tried. She is more or less bisexual. From the viewpoint of Kinsey all human are to a certain degree bisexual, homo tendencies exist at a more or less degree. That’s a “modern” viewpoint which tends to rid a person from guilt regarding sex. She will freely tell about her experience. She doesn’t have a ruin on the subject, more like a win, since she now can have beautiful clitoral orgasm, while with penetration she felt introverted not to have any pleasure, and that boy was a serious WH!
Now, she got in scientology. At some points, doing ruds, she find herself confessing her sex experience like if it was an overt. Because the moral code (especially after 1982) is very regressive. Now, it hit the viewpoint of some relatives, or the general viewpoint prior to Kinsey, or Master and Johnson, the conservative idea about sex.
She has gone into an earlier layer of moral code. It also might be shared at an hypnotic level by some entities. Entities don’t have self determinism. They tend to obey to enough “reality” especially low tone reality. On her folder a “CS” has written that she had homo experience, seen a couple of psychs, her eligibility will be questionnable. At this time, it will be safe to do a “plant check” to make sure she is not illegal PC. And of course, even if she didn’t read the notes of the “CS”, she is under a terrible wrong indication. Why? Because scientology never went to present time. And that is the illness plaguing it. They are stuck around 1960.
Because of this little punk. You have just to look at his hercut to see that little monster is stuck on the cold war. Up to to 1980, scientology was progressing with mainstream of it’s time (except the GO which was stuck on a James Bond and was looking like SPECTRE, with Jane Kember looking like number 2 (and Hubbard like Goldfinger!). But the tech itself was going forward and Not’s was not a tech for idiots.

From 1982, HCOPL about sec checking are reissued. We are back to 1962-1965. Overt given in session become actionnable. It’s the beginning of the end of scientology.

If you read “anatomy of thought” which is data serie 1 in fact, you understand that only basic law counts. But who read this, and who understand it? A subject like data serie evoluting with correct time stream require a certain IQ to be understood.
Like in any fascist state, after Miscavige took over, intelligent people were banned of scientology.
RTC just dig deep to get old tech and altered it for repressing anyone who would discover their coup. Being sec checked was no longer Hubbard tech but Stasi tech. Who could have a win with that?

I did not read all the replies but I was surprised no mention was made of 1967 policy on Second Dynamic Rules (I think that was the title) in which Hubbard said as much that it didn’t matter what your sexual practice was as long as it didn’t interfere with your progress in auditing. That said durring my tenure in the group there was certainly among some a disdain for gays though I think many were more accepting. I remember one event promoting religious freedom and along with speakers from other cults seeking legitimacy there was Paul of Peter, Paul and Mary. Not only was he for religioius freedom but freedom of sexuality for gays and lesbians which got a tepid response from the audience.

Funny that before I was in scientology it made no difference to me how sex was practiced.

Not long ago I was talking to someone who was in a different cult and I asked him why he left. He said he grew up. Bingo, that’s why I left: I had to grow up. As I did more sanity and humanity has been part of my life. The dreams of having the only answer to the dwindling spiral in all the eons no longer could be believed… though it was hard to let go. Nor could the real life playing out of the Emperor’s New Clothes by Clears, OTs and those running show…. they were as wacky as anyone else–some would say moreso.

Mike, I liked your post about charity and generousity in the wog world. I have been amazed at how caring and kind people can be without needing the turn it into a PR event.

Just recalling how when I left scientology in the mid 90s it was quite a shift to realize I did not have to look down on or distance myself from gays, pschiatrists, and “SP”s… that they were just as human and loveable as anybody, fellow travelers on life’s journey. A piece of growing up. Now I like to see the innocence in everyone… evil doers and all… without having to agree or condone.

The irony of studying Hubbard is that his psychosis let him say whatever sounded good to him at the moment. No one positive pronouncement of Hubbard’s corrects or cancels the countering negative things.

Hi Chris Thompson, I think your post about Ron is very true.He did have a knack for saying what would sound amazingly good at the moment.But as you wrote this does not negate or excuse the negative side.Always,Ann.

Chris, you’ve made a very relevant point. Much of scientology gospel is based on things Hubbard said while talking, and I don’t mean where he gave carefully prepared talks which I don’t think he ever did, but talks that could be described as employing a “conversational style”. Those of us less charitable in our judgements would call it, “yammering”. So, yes, he said whatever sounded good at the time and whatever popped into his head as evidenced by the baseless and contradictory products of his compulsion to wax authoritatively. Some of the things he said will not be quoted by his worshippers desirous to avoid “taking things out of context” as it were, wink wink.

Quite correct Roger. Now, I had access to EVERYTHING El Ron ever wrote or spoke because of my location. Unlike some others who keep screeching about taking stuff out of context. LRH’s context about gays is VERY simple and clear. He found through his “research” that they were 1.1 and thus dangerous perverts. He also wrote that they needed to be sidelined or, eliminated.

NOW, before others jump in; NO, he never gained enough power to implement that desire. Per his writings it is what he WANTED. If Herr Schicklgruber had never come to power I’m sure many would look back and defend Mein Kampf & he by stating that while he wrote that stuff, 1) He never actually tried to do it. 2) He was taken out of context.

Hi Roger Hornaday, I loved your post this morning.The way you put Ron into or out of context as it were resonated for me.Especially your point about his conversational style.He was an excellent off the cuff yarn spinner and hypnotist in my humble opinion.XO,Ann.

Hi Chris Thompson, Like all your posts,thank you.I remembered when I saw those old faded color Bell & Howell movies of Ron giving a talk at a shopping center in Phoenix,AZ I think.A Sea Org briefing at a house near Temple St,I saw these at least four times.Most interesting and yes he got me from the opening words.He was very skilled at that.Always,Ann.

Get ready for Dave’s new and improved RPF – Golden Age of Staff Purge (GASP). With this incredible breakthrough, the Sea Org member once and for all eliminates all sexual urges with the recently discovered FPRD 2D Form, just as LRH intended, unearthed where the Apollo was scrapped in 1984. It turns out the Mimeo Officer was a gay SP and hid these sacred writings in the aft well deck in a desperate attempt to cover up his hidden overts and evil intentions. That person has been removed from the scene (he died). The questions are designed to ferret out the last vestiges of abberant sexual behavior resulting in the guilty SO member cured and on fire to get back on post. The product is a totally neutered, distraction free Sea Org member, fully aligned with command intention and willing to die for Dave.

“That relationship with TC is very, very odd for grown men to have without intimacy”

Not true. Maybe you don’t experience this but “grown men” do experience non-sexual intimacy with our same sex friends – regardless of their sexuality. This is what good friendship is all about to me. If we were close friends, I’d be giving you a call “just to chat.”

Thank you for writing this, Mike. It needed to be said. Imo, probably the most evil thing that happens in Scientology, esp. with young S.O. members is the use of sex or lack of to introvert the poor guy or girl into their head so badly, they can’t see or think straight. It is used to control and make people feel like they are bad or deviant when they aren’t. I can’t think of anything worse, esp for young people.

Hi Laura Ann, Good to meet you. What you posted is true for me.Perceptive.I was not young young,but very sensitive and at 22 still innocent,when I joined SO.Because unlike a lot of my generation I wanted to make love not just jump on the pill to have sex and put notches on the bed post.So did Ron’s ambivalence regarding 2D and how that was applied mess me up? Yes very much so.Thank god I never got pregnant in SO.I really would have been in super hot water! So your post makes me hope the young young SO Members somehow see the light.Always,Ann.

Hi Laura Ann, Thank you for your reply.I was just thinking all those years ago in Sea Org, if I had gotten pregnant there would have been no decision,I would never not had my child! More precious to me now because I could not have children this life.Did not know then.My reason for never letting my child go are not religious or political.That is my spirit talking.I would never have disconnected from that child.They would have blown with me.I still feel so sad for those still in.I cry for them all.Love,Ann.

Hi Laura Ann,I posted back to you but it went to the great beyond!Let me try again.Thank you for your reply to me and I agree with you.I was thinking all these years later if I had gotten pregnant in Sea Org I would never have had an abortion.That child would have meant the world to me.Having lost a baby in 91 and because of that I could never have children,I know even more strongly that back then,that child would have blown with me.I would never disconnect from him or her.So I feel sad for all the still ins.I cry for them all.Would they could see the light.Love,Ann.

Hot topic. And Helmuts rant made it hotter.
Mike to my knowledge has never negated anyone’s wins. Hubbard stole from the best and there is some very useful philosophy’s and processes that have helped people.
To hold those wins and philosophies ransom as the cherch does is criminal and exploitive.
Mike is a boon to those in, out and never in as he is letting all people know the machinations of this insane organization gone wild.
Perspective is so important. We can have our wins and at this point they have nothing to do with what is happening in Scientology now.
I’m happy I’m out. Without Mike and people like him I would be dead. And I’m hardly a victim. I was a total victim when I was in. That’s the product of Scientology. Self-determined victims.
In the cherch, Self-determinism=Ron and Davey-determinism.

Hi BKmole, Your post rang so true for me.Yes I was a victim of Sea Org goodness gone bad,and yes perhaps I stayed through abuse too long,but as you know it is so hard to let go even when I knew I was drowning.Mike has this innate ability to communicate and connect.And an unbelievably strong Will that keeps him knocking out this blog for all of us to have a safe home to post.Do I know his daily life and hopes and dreams,no those belong to Christie and him and their family always.But I will do my utmost to protect the freedom,from 24/7 slavery in the Cult that we all sharedDo I get under Mike’s skin? oh I am sure I do.Does he get under my skin at times? Hardly ever maybe once or twice.But my point is that is life,the world and I would be dead and my spirit flown if he had not given me the gift of comm on this blog.So he and his are part of me now and we are all”doing something about it here” Love your posts.Ann.

Mike. Things have to be seen through moral code of the time. When Hubbard wrote in 1951 that homosexual were 1,1, the whole fucking universe starting with medicine would consider homosexuality as an illness, and it was illegal, you would risk to be comitted in a psych asylum or put in jail. Turing (there was a movie about this guy who broke the german codes) was, after the war, obliged to be chimically castrated or put in jail for his homosexuality. He suicided. At this time psychiatrist, would emprisonned the hands of boys to make sure they don’t masturbate, and some did clitorisectomy on girls. Those psychs were the dirty son of a bitch that Hubbard described.

When Hubbard say that homosexuality could be audited he is bloody mild for his time, we are in 1951. Up to the 1960, the current treatment for homosexuality was electric shock. They had to withold homosexuality, like witholding to be jew in Europe during WW2.
And homosexual were ashame to be. I knew some guy who went for auditing with the ruin of being homosexual in the 1970. At this time they were treated nicely with auditor codes in and were given auditing (Life repair style with prepcheck). At this time scientology and Hubbard were not homophobic, some scientologist were homophobic being homosapiens of their time. I have known also scientologists racist with black and antisemitics.

In the UK, up to 1967 there was a law saying that you could go to jail if you are homosexual. I have known before 1982 a lot of homosexual in scientology, and there was no discrimination. After many of them were fired. I remember 2 lesbians girls, in 1982 they suddenly were debarred from the course room, if they continued to have an “aberrated 2D”.

Its like scientology was more modern than society before 1980. Then society became more liberal, and scientology regressed in time.
You speak of this little monster of Miscavige (thinking that he is not becoming history and still in power is almost unbearable) Of course he is homophobic like the worst of KKK. How come nobody hasn’t yet broke his little neck?

Scientology is frozen. So books with old codes, old sec check should be warned of.
At the time Hubbard wrote science of survival, homosexuality was considered by society like now pedophily.

Well, sure as shit, Miscavige will probably come out with what LRH said about not getting involved in sexuality. Same as masturbation. LRH said he didn’t care if you masturbated that he wanted real crimes, real overts. That bitch, DM, will start pushing what LRH said that is opposite to all you are talking about here. How all of this isn’t what he intended. It was you and Marty bla bla bla. Homophobe, Homo”hatred” no more. He always adjusts to public opinion and adjusts to you and Marty (that means just you now-a-days.
He’ll never adjust to Disconnection. That’s the only card to hold control that david miscavige has.

Hubbard was not immune from cultural conditioning. The conditioning of his time said that homosexuals, who in my experience are almost always highly cultured and civilized, were bad whereas violent males were and are held up as role models.

To me, if you really want to make a better civilization, you should start by being more civilized than your surrounding culture. Civilizations are tolerant. CofS should stop harassing the hairdressers and interior designers – they make things nice! Instead, concentrate on the eradication of thugs and thuggery! Unfortunately, Hubbard appears to have enjoyed thugs and thuggery.

The homosexuals helped bring about civilization on Earth in Babylon, the most culturally and technically advanced society on Earth at the time. They can do so again if not abused and harassed their whole lives, as has happened with so many I know.

It’s the thugs and barbarians that you have to watch out for, they are violent and cause war etc and tend to kill the homos who in return talk smack about the barbarians lack of taste. One of the problems with barbarians is that they don’t understand that they are barbarians or that it’s bad to be one.

Genetru-
I got your message about tolerance and thank you for the reminder,
that tolerance is a valid measure of the advance of civiization.
Why John can’t find his cork before popping off another invalidation of knowingness is just beyond me,
he just does that, most oftern when he doesn’t know the person well, and I hope you continue to post here whenever you get the notion.

1951 was only six to seven years after the concentration camps were freed. It wasn’t only Jews imprisoned in them. A half million homosexuals were killed by the Nazis in the camps. This was public knowledge. So what does Hubbard do? Acknowledge that the Nazi solution to the “gay problem” was perfectly acceptable. The cultural mores of the time do not matter in this instance and do not excuse Hubbard.

The operative word is “genocide”. He proscribed “convert or die”, just like the Inquisition. Countries in Europe and all of the United States had eliminated the death sentence for sodomy by the middle of the 19th Century; in France, sodomy was and has been legal since 1791 (except for the years they were under Nazi control). Hubbard wanted that reinstated in a Clear Planet.

There is no justification for this. There is no explaining it away as a relic of his time.

Dear Espiando,
What you say comparing Hubbard with nazis concerning homosexual show how ignorant you are of Hubbard writing. Hubbard wanted to audit homosxual in a time were they were electrick shoked, jailed for being homo. Hubbard was much more liberal than the rest of the society. He couldn’t say that it was ok to be homo. It would have been like now saying that after all pedophily is acceptable. So, with his education background, he would conclude it was an abarration and that it could be audited.
You could note that he wrote in the dianetics course in 1969 that it’s a crime to evaluate the aberration of the PC from what you see. Aberration of the PC is what the PC consider being an abarration from his own viewpoint.
Homophobia and many fascist viewpoints started in the church with RTC, and the little punk.
When Hubbard write the Joburg in 1959, he just write the principal trangression aginst the society in South Afrika at the time of Appartheid. “have you ever have sex with a somone of the wrong race?” He said that a withold is a trangression against a moral code in “what is a withold” lecture. He doesn’t mean that he agrees with the code. If you were to sec check an SS, you would ask “have you spared a jew’s life?” and if he did, he would have comitted an overt against his “command intention”.
Sec-check are a matter of code. Today you could ask : “Did you discriminate homosexual?” or “are you an antisemite?” those are clearly overts in our society.
Intelligent scientologists would have revised the Joburg since 30 years! I remember while auditing a grade 2 having done a Joburg. When I asked the question of “wrong race” to the PC he was quite puzzled. He actually had sex with a black girl. But he couldn’t see why it was an overt! But finally he “cogged” that it was probably not ok to have relations with black girls (returning to a probable grand parents viewpoint!) This is how scientologist after being kind of revolutionnary type of people become tuxedo and very very conservative style.
Because bulletins are frozen in time. Abd it is not because they are scientologist, it’s because they understand nothing to scientology. Never listened to class 2 lectures about overt and withold. And certainly never read the Data serie 1 : “Anatomy of thought” where Hubbard tell about the difference between a basic law and a rule. And that only basic law count.

“Command intention” followers of the “COB” and extreme antiscientologists who could compare Hubbard with a nazi share one thing : extreme stupidity.

“Hubbard wanted to audit homosxual in a time were they were electrick shoked, jailed for being homo. ”

FG, you begin your lengthy comment with a false argument which means I needn’t punish myself by reading further. Hubbard wanted to audit homosexuals according to you which made him open-minded, “liberal” as you put it. Yet in his own words which you CONVENIENTLY and blissfully choose to ignore, he called for exterminating them without remorse in case auditing and a few other measures failed to cure them. I can only imagine what further molestations of bad logic await the innocent reader who misguidedly elects to read your entire statement.

Roger, I assume you never read Hubbard… really never ever he called for exterminating anyone. Ask even to Mike Rinder he was there and studied scientology. What you say is pure non sense. You are a Hubbard hater. Actually you belong to the same specie than Miscavige. Extremists are there to make life horrible to good people.

It was clear to me that FG was making a comparison of relative truths, and that would not be a false argument.

In a lecture on one of the Academy levels, Hubbard was talking about the need for communication to be on the reality level of the receiver. One example he gave was how you might respond to an angry man who was ranting and raving – “Put them all up against the wall and shoot ’em!.” The idea was that now you could actually get through to the guy, just because of having acknowledged his feelings.

Perhaps the position Hubbard took in DMSMH was for the purpose of hitting the reality level of the reader – by first acknowledging what the prevalent think was in 1950. BUT he went on to say that processing would more easily handle the situation. I highly doubt he thought society would ever go to such extreme measures as extermination, but that they would agree that homosexuals needed to have their “aberrations” audited. I agree with the idea that Hubbard was a victim of cultural think at the time.

FG: “Because bulletins are frozen in time. And it is not because they are scientologists, it’s because they understand nothing to [about] scientology. Never listened to class 2 lectures about overt and withhold. And certainly never read the Data series 1 : ‘Anatomy of thought’ where Hubbard tells about the difference between a basic law and a rule. And that only basic laws count.”

Precisely. This is probably the biggest reason that so many criticisms are absurd.

Correct marildi. HOWEVER, that is ONLY for PLs’ (green on white) NOT books, tapes, HCOB’s, (the tech of the mind, Tone scale, etc.) E.g.,the data on homosexuals vis-a-vis being 1.1 and criminal, needing to be eliminated, etc. is NOT HCO PL’s that can be changed or eliminated. See tech degrades for more on this.

Did you REALLY not know this or, are you just selectively editing your memory?

At this point, with what Mike said in the article, it’s more like grasping at straws for anything, anything, that might absolve L. Ron from ordering genocide of LGBTs if they can’t be converted to nice heteronormatives.

Please stop quoting L. Ron Hubbard to make points. Someone will respond with another quote that says the opposite. It’s an endless game. Hair splitting about whether it is acceptable practice in scientology to alter the writings of L. Ron Hubbard is like arguing how many angels fit on the head of a pin. THere isn’t a scientologist in the world that will tell you that it is OK to alter what Ron says. Other than those who have already been declared SP’s for being squirrels. That is the bottom line and you and everyone else here knows it. Please stop wasting bandwidth with this.

There is a lot of truth to what you are saying, Mike, but the fact is that if Miscavige were a social personality, the policies do exist which he could utilize to promote very different practices than what he has chosen to promote.

Observingsandiego – no, I can’t say that I know of actual policy letters specifically which have been updated to change with the times. But in effect this has been done with, for example, the attitude towards women. In “Science of Survival,” Hubbard projected the 1950’s attitude in the following:

“We have, in the woman who is an ambitious rival of the man in his own activities, a woman who is neglecting the most important mission she may have. A society which looks down upon this mission, and in which women are taught anything but the management of a family, the care of men, and the creation of the future generation, is a society which is on its way out.” (SOS)

Obviously, this “policy” was changed with regard to women on Scientology staff, as an example, who had equal rights with men to become execs, etc. (Note that they were also allowed to have children and a family. It was Miscavige who changed the policy on family time in the SO and eventually on having children at all.)

The same type of change could be made into policy as regards the 1950 statement about gays.

Observingsandiego, in the early ’80’s I got approved a change to a HCO PL. Can’t remember the title but I had added to it a line about making sure an exec giving an order had enough knowledge in the area he was ordering.

In the seventies, I audited a lot. I had some PCs who were homosexual, never it was an problem, they were going through their grades. At this time it was forbidden to make trouble for a PC about his case. It was forbidden to say to anyone PC was homo, or whatever. The auditor code was sacred. There was actually no direct routing of a PC to ethics. And iron policy destroyed by Miscavige.

Mr Lock, Espiando, Roger H and all, I suppose that you never studied scientology. You speak about a subject you don’t know shit.

I’m amazed Mike that you don’t tell them yourself that Hubbard wanted to exterminate homo is just completely false, it’s a ridiculous statement. Hubbard couldn’t care less weather people were homo or not.

I’m not a fucking cultist. I have always hated them even when Mike and Marty were still in the cult. I have been an ennemy of the cultist aspect of scientology all the time. And I never liked sea org uniform, really never. I actually didn’t like them at all. 15 years ago Marty Rathbun would have declared me SP as IG ethics if I didn’t withold my opinion. I’m a natural born SP for robotic cultist, (and stupid hater).

Hubbard has had some flaws and wrote some bad issus on SP act and all. But never ever he claimed or intend to exterminate anyone. I’m sorry to say that in front the wise Mr Espiando, Lock and Roger H, but Hubbard wanted to help and he did.

I said what I had to say about this very clearly. You should vent in some other direction.

You are getting all worked up over this when it is unnecessary. If you believe others’ opinions are ill-founded and based upon ignorance, then take your own advice. Why be bothered by people who “know shit.”?

I don’t post here much, but I read Mike’s blog daily and have watched in awe as someone I once knee-jerk despised has morphed over the life of this blog into someone I genuinely respect and like. I cannot emphasize enough that it wasn’t just Mike who had to change for this to happen. But that’s another story. This long-ass post is about Hubbs and homosexuality.

I know we’ve been over this topic again and again in the critic community, but for me, I realized it was what got me into this battle with Hubbard’s con in the first place. As a young, gay man in 1978, freshly out to my very accepting family, I was dating a boy we’ll call Jim. He was my age (18) and my parents really liked him. He would hang out with us constantly and never really talked about his family in depth or asked me to come to his home (he still lived with his parents and sister). We dated for a few months and I wondered, as you do when you’re 18, if Jim was “the one.” I was taking a year off between high school and college to work and save money for a summer in Europe, so I came home from work one day and my parents were agitated. My dad asked me to listen to a phone message they’d received from “my little friend.” Whenever my dad referred to any of my friends thusly, they’d usually done something to earn his ire.

The phone message was so weird, I had to listen to it twice to make sure I heard it correctly. Here was my boyfriend, who had spent many a night at our place, telling my parents that I was “very sick,” that in fact our whole family was sick and that it was because I was a homosexual. He continued that only Scientology could help us and that it would “be a shame if this got into the media.”

Waitwhat?

Huh?

Now, this was 1978. What was he going to do, put an ad in the Penny Saver? Needless to say, I felt like I’d been hit in the gut with a baseball bat. I tried calling him. No answer. No phone machine. Nada.

I tried for another week. Nothing. I tried our yoga class we went to. Gone. He wasn’t in my circle of high school and theater friends so they couldn’t be of any help. Now, in those days, Jim and I were very into metaphysics and spirituality, but there was never a mention of Hubbard or Scientology. So, being rather in the dark about the church, I bought a copy of Dianetics to see what the hell was going on. Besides being impenetrably dull word-salad, I found that it was impenetrably-dull, homophobic word salad (among other ridiculous things) and a life-long critic was born.

Fast-forward five years (1983), and I run into Jim and his date at a party. He looked like a deer in the car headlights when he saw me. As I approached, he hung his head. I couldn’t tell if he was laughing or crying. Long story short, he told me that his parents had found a letter I had written to him. He had been totally closeted to his Scientologist parents. They stood over him with the local mission holder in attendance, and told him what to say into the answering machine that day ten years before. I was gobsmacked and mostly felt sorry for him. He was never really in the church. He told me his father and mother divorced, she blew and the dad stayed in for a while and quietly left.

At the time I reconnected with Jim, I had moved back to my hometown of San Francisco and worked in a bookstore in the Castro district. Whenever anybody brought a copy of Dianetics up to the counter, I’d have them read a copy I kept below the register with all the crazy, homophobic crap highlighted and bookmarked. They’d stand to the side and I’d watch their faces as they read. In the two years I worked there the reactions varied from laughter to rage, but nobody ever bought a single copy after reading that cray-cray.

Thanks Mike, for all you do. It can’t have been an easy journey, even once you were free of the church. May you reconnect with your children someday soon. And to the rest of our far-flung, disparate community, every story matters. Keep talking.

Mr Rinder, Two questions for you: 1. Do you think Scientology could be reformed if it had sane, compassionate leadership? 2. Do you think if Scientology continues to contract, Scientologists will try to remove DM from power?

1. I don’t think any organized “church” is ever going to succeed. I don’t think scientology needs to be (or can be) “reformed.” People can use what they find works and abandon that which doesn’t. They can practice the parts of scientology as long as isn’t abusing anyone and it works for them. But I do not believe any organization will ever really work, other than small localized “collective” where people get together to practice what they find workable.

2. No. He (and they) always have some other reason to explain failures (psychs, big pharma, SP, bitter defrocked apostates, the media). As long as he is around and they keep contributing to his campaigns, cause will always be assigned else and he will be the only hope for handling it.

Not that it matters really but it’s that attitude of yours Mike that keeps me frequenting this site. I’d like to see a sane approach to understanding scientology. Trying to eliminate it will only cause problems that will never go away and create an angst against whatever concept of freedom we think we live under and vote for.
But as a large group scientology will forever develop people like miscavige to take it over, same as any organisation that creates a flow of ‘easy’ money. If the mind of man is ever going to understood, it will never come from mainstream either – far too many vested interests keeping the “common folk” in line for that.
Must be quite the time consumer for you to keep this site going – thanks.

You frequent this site all the time. I visit here daily and there’s almost always a comment from you. Maybe Mike understands, from his intimate, inside knowledge as a Scientology executive, that the sane approach is that Hubbs was a con man who cobbled together some things that worked, others that didn’t and still others that he just pulled out of his ass for convenience or maybe because he was simply high as a kite. Just because some aspects of psychology have been ineffective or harmful, it’s been self-correcting. That’s what science does. And because psychology is a soft science, it’s trial and error on the most complicated system in the universe: the human brain. One step at a time.

Scientology? Talk about a system designed to keep common folk in line.

True, what would I know? I was only a front line CL4 auditor and sup for over a decade, working 12 plus hours a day. Mere pittance compared to those who PR for a living.
Was a soldier too, what the hell do I know of about armies and armed conflict? I was only a mere corporal.
I’ve seen/known many executives and have known many officers, a few competent ones but many more who were grossly incompetent. Having rank doesn’t make you an expert no matter how much you’d like to think otherwise. What you do and the results you get are what define you. A negative opinion thrust forward carries the same weight as a positive one unless you have no idea of what you are talking about and then it’s just bs, no matter how it’s dressed.
And concerning bs, there’s no shortage of that concerning scientology, for both sides of the camp.
I think I’m allowed to comment when, where and how I choose, that is correct isn’t it? Or do I need your permission?

And one more point. The most glaring thing about the scientology organisation is that the rot began at the top of the organising board and flowed downhill.
Countless well intentioned people in the lower rank structure were abused, financially punished and ripped away from the families for many, many years before 2007.
I walked out in disgust around 1998 and severed all ties by early 2000.
Where was management when so many staff members were struggling just to keep food on the table? The luxuries of life like new clothes, cars that worked and medical/dental treatment were an impossible dream. We were blamed for not working hard enough and not being whatever the fuck “standard” means while the lies flowed thick and fast from your prised executive strata. I’ve earned the right to say what I like about that organisation and its tech, as many others who’ve paid the price also are free to say whatever they like.
I never fire the first shot in invalidating another of their scientology opinions but as sure as hell, I’ll fire the accurate ones.

Good people. I hope that your 2 questions could be positively answered but unless COB contract a cancer and die, I don’t see how they will get rid of him. If he was gone, it’s not impossible to think that the church would reform.

Back on the day I audited a gay guy on Op Pro by Dup when it was the HQS course.
It blew his color blindness ( color blind since age 9) He went home to his gay partner
and told him the news and the gay partner freaked out that Scientology made his Gay partner better.
This destroyed the gay guy who came back to the mission caved in and crying.
After that this person never again came back.

What does being gay have to do with this story? As far as I can tell it is totally irrelevant, unless you are trying to make the point that all gay people “deestroy their partners” or they all hate scientology or what?

Jose Chung, I don’t believe for one nano-second anybody’s color blindness was cured by auditing. It is my belief you are lying. I’m not saying you ARE lying, only that I BELIEVE you are and I’d be willing to bet a ruinous amount of money on it.

Or the PC was lying and wrote a wonderful success story and the real reason he never returned is because of his outlandish lie about his color blindness being cured and he was afraid of being found out. Whatever it is, something smells funny about that story.

AnnB, thanks so much for your very sweet memories of both Quentin and John. They certainly match mine. Quentin gave me the most incredible review session I ever had in all my years. We both laughed like crazy guys all through it. No rote/remote auditing from that guy! I knew John in my NY days. He did a series of radio and tv interviews there which resulted in a LOT of good news for Scn at that time. Cab drivers recognized him as soon as he got in their cabs! He was utterly amazing, almost angelic when he was explaining something to the audience. As well, his output resulted in a wave of new people into the org and missions. Declared? Utter BS!

Hi thegman77, Two lasting memories I have of John’s letters and Quentin.What you posted about John’s angelic presence when explaining points came across very strongly in his letters to me.I really felt that.Quentin and I used to go hang out along the covered walkway that was facing the gardens at The Manor.We would be the only two sitting along the hall,and all he had to do was look at me directly and we both would laugh,it was totally amazing.Never any rote/remote auditing from him ever!Like stardust.Love,Ann.

Thank you for this.
Someone who is so extremely homophobe like Miscavige, might in fact be very much afraid of being gay himself. Or, maybe more so, fighting his own gay tendencies by exposing them in others very ostentatiously and by boasting about his own ‘performances’ with women, who are just used by him. He might be overcompensating his own ‘failure’.

A very dear friend of mine was a homosexual. His strict adherence to the Church and loyalty to LRH led him to accept trying to change , or that he had to change . Having to fight the impulse and giving in to the impulse , accepting to try to be changed but not wanting to change , observing that he couldn’t change in spite of believing the tech will make you free , this mad cycle made his life a living hell.
The arrogance of the ignorant can ruin a life and they did , in my views.
Unlike Sunny , he was not declared , but only because he agreed to the madness , and other factors.

What a very sad story. Completely dedicated to Hubbard’s dream and willing to try to turn himself into a heterosexual. marie, I’ll bet “…his life a living hell” was an understatement. From your post I assume he’s still in?

For those missing OSD, it is my fault. I just found him sent to the spam file. Must have been my fat fingers trying to negotiate the iPhone to moderate comments. The little icons are so small and so close together…. (my excuse). You will see a bunch of old comments from OSD appear in a minute, though they may not all show up as “current” they may be buried back in the thread where he posted them. I also found two other inadvertent “spam” comment in there from John Locke and one other.

Yep! Truer words were never spoken, Steve. People will be amazed, when this all falls apart for the cult, how much physical brutality was unleashed on their own members, not to mention the mental assault that they deal with daily.

Whatever is happening in your lives, and I know people are disconnected from families who post here. but, knowing what has, and will continue to occur inside this cult, causes me to give eternal thanks to the universe that it’s not happening in my life! I’m just so very thankful to have the incredible life that I have! Living a cult free life is truly a blessing…

Mike, thank you for this post and for your positive, accepting stance on the subject. While the US has made many positive strides in the right direction we are still a cultural backwater in regards to acceptance, far behind any other 1st world country (and even some 2nd and 3rd world countries). Sadly scientology’s views on this subject aren’t far off from not only the Catholic Church, but many Protestant churches as well. I firmly believe that if there is a god, or if you are in a religion that claims to help people – judging someone based on something that isn’t up to them and denying one their basic rights and needs is the real sin, no higher being would ever find fault with acceptance, tolerance and love.

If you believe the late John Boswell, condemnation of homosexuality as something apart from the general regard of non-procreative sexuality as sin didn’t take place until the late 12th Century, when there was a massive social movement toward conformity with the majority view that swept up a lot of minorities and non-empowered peoples, such as Jews and women, in its wake. Before this movement, it was rather live-and-let-live with gay people. St. Peter Damian’s condemnation of homosexuals was actually blown off by the Pope.

In his condemnation of homosexuality, Aquinas actually uses one of the weakest possible arguments available, and seems to be a little ambivalent about that. But society at the time required a population whose duty was to supply the necessary labor that kept feudalism going, and that meant sex had to be channeled to procreation, with clear lines toward the inheritance of property. That’s why the Church made marriage a sacrament in the 13th Century.

Boswell’s final work, his rediscovery to popular attention of Christian ceremonies which were undoubtedly for same-sex marriage, put same-sex marriage on the agenda of gay rights, albeit as a future target, in the 90s. He would have been proud to see some of those rediscovered ceremonies being adapted and used for their proper purpose today.

Agreed ESpi! I knew the ban on homosexuality came much later in the Catholic Church but not the exact details. The marriage ceremony bit is very interesting indeed, I’m glad we are gettin back around to it. 😉

At my mission the “ethics” officer decided to “cure” a guy of being gay. He worked and worked with him to get him “straight” then “ordered” him to have sex with a female friend of his. He did.. she did… they did. He came in carried by two friends of his. He had a complete breakdown and the “ethics” officer could not figure out what went wrong. I have often wondered what happened to the poor guy… I never saw him again after he was carried in. This was in the 70s.

When he was carried in he was crying and physically ill. He looked like hell. I wish I had stood up for him but I was a kid of 14 or so and did not have what it took. None of the other adults did anything that I know of either.

What an evil organization can be created by people wanting to do the “right” things.

Hi Miss Ellie, Good to meet you.Thank you for your powerful post.Yes I saw some of what you posted in Sea Org,but I am so so sorry you had to be 14 and feel helpless in that situation.I really feel for you.Glad you are out now,you are very strong.Love,Ann.

I suspect Helmut’s comment is being misinterpreted. I used to work in Helmut’s business more than a decade ago, and he did not show any sign of homophobia. In fact, he had an openly homosexual office manager who went to the office parties with his same sex domestic partner, and Helmut talked cheerfully with both of them in the party.

Right, Mike. It was in the original edition of DMSMH and is also in the newest (“basic books”) edition. I don’t know about the editions in between.

“…alcohol is apparently not physiological in its addictive effect. With the whole range of chemistry to choose stimulants and depressants from, why the government chooses a superiorly aberrative and inferiorly stimulative compound to legalize is a problem for the better mathematicians, possibly these who deal exclusively in tax income problems. Opium is less harmful, marijuana is not only less physically harmful but also better in the action of keeping a neurotic producing, phenobarbital does not dull the senses nearly as much and produces less after effect, ammonium chloride and a host of other stimulants are more productive of results and hardly less severe on the anatomy…Making one drug immoral and another one taxable is a sample of the alcohol engram in society.” (DMSMH)

“Not all the beauty nor the handsomeness nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the vicious damage such people do to sane men and women. The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered.”

sounds a lot like David Miscavige should be suddenly and abruptly deleted.

Point #1 of Keeping Scientology Working is ‘Having the correct technology’. Since Hubbard’s writings on homosexuality would be considered the correct tech on the subject, I wish to add my comments to a small portion of this policy letter:

“We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above the bank. (why not?)

“We are dealing only in facts (really?) and the above is a fact (if you say so) —the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatizations of the bank called “new ideas” would have wiped it out. (one man’s opinion). Supporting this is the fact that man has never before evolved workable mental technology (how does this support your claim?) and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he did evolve—psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress, punishment, etc., ad infinitum.” (How is all of psychiatry and psychology vicious? Wasn’t it you who said generalities won’t do?)

I’m heterosexual, and as far as I know, most of my friends are and yet none of us are as obsessed with the details of male homosexual activities as the homophobes I’ve noticed on other forums.
It’s almost a cliche, but the evil dwarf’s obsession with body building and near-constant ranting about homosexuality does make you wonder doesn’t it?

I’ve wondered that as well, with all of the books and articles written by people close to dm that speak to his constant degradation of people around him in very homophobic terms… Regardless, LRH set the tone and dm has taken it to another level. Its disgusting all the way around.

You give someone a want, a desire, an urge. Some burning desire to reach for something. Then you say that want is a sin, bad or not right to accomplish. Like eating. You give someone a body that needs food. Then you tell him that eating is bad. Currently they not only tell us that eating is bad, also breathing. CO2 you know. Same with sex. Religion tell us always that sex, eating, breathing whatever is necessary to let a body live is bad or is only acceptable if done right. The right way, at the right time or whatever else is told us to be right.
Ever wondered why especially Religions have so much attention on the right way to eat or not eat at times, have sex or not have sex, the right way to have sex or whatever. They know that one has to eat and do all the other things a body needs. So every one breaks the rules. There is no one on earth with a body existence that can follow all the rules exactly. Even if he tries.
Next step is then to find a way to pull the withholds. It is not so much the punishment that is the bad thing. It is an old formula to make a population OBEY. That is all what that game is about. Make you obey. They do not care of you are gay or hetero. They only want you to break the rules. Do not have too much attention on the different groups with different rules. The objective behind all those groups is to make you obey. Fall to you knees and follow their orders.
Now the sin is to not be tolerant. Then you are marked being bad. Next step is to control not only what you say. The final stage is to control your thoughts and not let yourself think other thoughts then the sanctioned ones. But it is not possible completely control the thoughts and then you may observe yourself having bad thoughts and then you punish yourself. That is the last level of the game. Controlling yourself.
Living in the Sea Org is the blueprint of the living on this planet in the future. I always tried to figure out the meaning of the statement that only Clears and Ots will survive this planet. In the 70ies I had no good reality about that. Now 2015 I have a very good reality about it.

LRH himself was of course quite voraciously heterosexual – but then again, it’s rumored he did some forbidden things out in the desert with Jack Parsons, so maybe his behavior with women was “making up for” some deep feelings for men. So maybe he himself was “projecting his own case onto others” in this regard too.

I think you are exactly right. If you’ve read Hubbard’s Affirmations*, you know that he is trying (for pages and pages) to convince himself that (1) Jack is a friend only (but it’s normal for Hubbard to enjoy looking at Jack’s body, because ART) and (2) Hubbard’s wife is very sexually attractive to him and sex with her is eminently satisfying for him. These points go hand-in-hand; it was clear (to me, anyway) that Hubbard was trying to make himself forget about what must have been an overwhelming sexual experience with Jack, and to push his continuing attraction to Jack to the bottom of his psyche by, in effect, “writing over” those feelings with the new “code” of “my only sexual desires are for women” and “my wife is a very desirable woman.” There are hints in the writings that episodic impotence compounded this problem.

Given the mores and morals of the day, it wasn’t unusual for Hubbard to feel guilty for having enjoyed sex with a man; but he reacted to that guilt with the overblown emotional response of a teenager, not a grown man. I think it was the guilty and scared teenager in Hubbard that so emphatically rejected a man’s (i.e., his) sexual attraction to another man and ultimately defined it as aberrant. Easy to see how that guilt was transposed into hatred of homosexuals. And because Hubbard was his “religion”, and vice-versa, hatred of homosexuality became a tenet of the faith of Scientology.

I’m disappointed. I got to the end of these comments and no-one from Milestone Two stood up to defend Ron’s scientific understanding that homosexuals are creepy, warped, disgusting, and Scientology can and will cure them of their foul misdeeds. Can I ask: do the fundamentalist-Indies support LRH’s homophobia, or do they try to doublethink that away, too?

Most of them , a least the ones I know, don’t support homophobia , fair gaming , SP declares , nor disconnection. They tacitly disagree with all those items, even when they refuse to make public statements against LRH or Scn. Most of them, just want to audit, help others, and go up the Bridge. They are not interested in in anything else. That has been my experience with dozens of them, at least.

Finally i get it, what an “Indie” is. Took me this long to figure that out- because first I hate lingo-talk, and second I get creeped out by Indies. That short list above? Fair-gaming, disconnection, etc, that is a fairly sinister list. In addition, I can’t help but see the Ethics Formula by LRH as the tool to keep you trapped wherever he feels like it on the Bridge. It is a trap. It is inherently dangerous. To use it, therefore, one must first sacrifice reason, itself, waging that danger for whatever therapy you can milk out of it?
Indies do adhere to this ethics policy, correct? Count me out.

Some do, some don’t. Millstone Two demands absolute adherence to everything Hubbard wrote, so they believe in Ethics. Other Indies don’t.

Ethics was the main reason why the Indie movement of the early 80s diaspora didn’t maintain any cohesion; Bill Robertson and David Mayo hooked up after their expulsions from the cult, but Robertson insisted on applying Ethics Tech and Mayo said absolutely not, so Robertson broke the alliance up. If that hadn’t happened, things would have probably been very different today.

Yes and no, Observingsandiego. Indies are mostly about “Standard Tech” as regards to auditing procedures and auditor training. They DO resent any criticism towards LRH and Scn, and many of them misguidedly think that such a criticism comes from having overts and withholds on LRH and/or Scn itself or things you don’t want others to find out about you. This is based on an article/HCOB (Hubbard Communication Bulletin) tittled “Critics of Scientology”. It is also based on others HCOBs on the subject of “Missed Withholds”. Here is the link for “Critics of Scientology” :

But even though they resent criticisms towards LRH and/or Scn , they don’t use “Fair Game” , “SP declares” , “Disconnection” , “Harsh Ethics” , or any of that shit. Their emphasis is on getting others up the Bridge and auditor trained w/out any alterations of LRH’s original writings.

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rules, and you also find out here many who are just plain assholes, but assholes are to be found at ANY practice or religion. Most Indies are totally harmless minding their own business. As I said, I know a lot, a lot of them so I have direct experience with them. They do not approve of all the suppressive stuff from the CofS or even from LRH even if they don’t publicly admit it.

That’s good TC.
It seems to be that you can’t use anything of scientology without being moulded into one camp or the other.
Not all Catholics have to view child abuse as an in-house problem.
I don’t think there will ever be an un-opinionated use of scientology ever allowed in the foreseeable future. Pity, people have such potential to be benevolent.

Actually, no, they do not.
The Bridge is all kept neatly secret, first things first. The average and the the everyday hard-working scn-gist doesn’t have a clue what is next on The Bridge until he gets there, and that of course doesn’t happen until some (long) time after he or she has emptied his pockets.
Walk into your friendly neighborhood Org or mission and ask about Xenu and you will get genuinely blank faces, or poor souls who think Xenu is something the media made up.
Because what happens in auditing is kept expressly secret… the lie of OT III is also successfully kept under wraps and very distant from the eyes and ears of every Staff who might come into the view of public or media. Protect the Bridge and keep everyone on it. As far as I’m concerned, every word Hubbard ever wrote was meant for this, and only this, purpose.

Not necessarily so, Marco. They use Ethics formulas to help themselves and others, but not in any authoritarian way as LRH did. And they mostly use it to help some PC to sort out some life situation so that his auditing runs better. The guys and gals at MS2, for example are quite sensible about Ethics , they tend to be quite balanced in ethics matters. I can’t honestly say that they are LRH-like on that even if they think they are ; they are not. One of them actually surprised me with his incredible willingness for rehabilitation and understanding. I got to confess that he showed more compasion than I did on a giving situation. I actually learned a lot from him.

At South Africa, for example, it was an Indie who changed me forever. It is incredible how a person who wasn’t even OT nor trained could influence in me so much. She saved my life and doesn’t even know it. Waked me up real hard. She cut the comm line, and I don’t even know why, but what she gave me will forever be with me and I am indebted to her for eternity.

Indies are good people, Marco ; many of them are extraordinary beings. Misguided about LRH and Scn, yes, but wasn’t so many of us Ex(es) as well and even for many decades ? I for one, am willing to allow them to see the light and be patient enough to them as that Lady who changed me was with me.

Their basic over of omission is their failure to publicly acknowledge the parts of Scn and LRH that are misguided, suppressive, and that demand a strict adherence to authoritarian dogmas. But they really don’t see it, most of them, as LRH’s hypnotic influence can be quite powerful. A cult is not an easy subject to let go of. I know ; I was there myself.

Thank you so very much everyone, Peter, you do seem to have a special quality for understanding, thank you.
My concern today revolves around this unavoidable perception of LRH and what his original intentions were beginning the first day after the release of Dianetics. Even with the book itself, which is written in such an orbital fashion, really, like the flight path of an electron around some complex element. Step back from that and ask yourself, could not all of his points have been made in a much simpler and straightforward fashion? Anyone would agree that Dianetics is not an easy read. I go the next step and say it is intentional guidance into the land of confusion, richly embellished with fictional enticements and then reinforced with coersion and forceful manipulation to then keep you trapped while thinking you the reciever of this priveledged technology are walking around on some kind of righteous, higher ground. Your mind goes floating around in the clouds, you feel so good about yourself when you see yourself as a “good” scientologist, the direct result of the founder’s intention, same as feeling bad for having any thought to break away or even just deviate from or so much as question the doctrine, also very much the result of that same, sinister and overtly hidden, intention of LRH.
Excuse me, but I need to talk to my therapist now. But, what I really mean is I need to steer completely clear of this “tech”, this construction of ethics, so-called. The intent to be controlled is far too evident and equally alarming is the intent to keep that intent out of the minds’ eye.

I fully understand your arguments ; I really do. Can’t say that I disagree with any of them.

Scn is very booby-trapped indeed. One needs to learn to filter the truths from the falsities, and that takes some doing and a very trained mind. Scn is definitively not for the weak-minded and cult(ish) individual. Only the real strong can survive it, modify it, and change it for the better. If you can see what you see about it, that can only means that you have already freed yourself from it and that you have a VERY trained mind.

My advice to you is to use it as you see fit (the workable parts) ,or don’t use it at all if you are too upset about it. Just move on. But moving on requires letting go of your past bad experience with it , because if not , it can slowly eat you up w/out you even noticing about it. Just let go, my friend ; relax and let go.

Let go and be free.
Yes, and you are quite right. By my own creed I have to let go, let the entire philosophy known as Scientology fly on by to its own pre-ordained destination, and let myself be free from it, in its entirety.
The attempt to mine the tech for anything valuable is not only fruitless, it is precisely the kind of activity that got me trapped in there in the first place. Those early days found me willing to take one leap of faith after another when encountering the fantastic and the farther-reaching claims Scientology and what it professes to be offering the world. Can truth be found in a pit of mud? To bury my head in the tech again means constantly sorting out what is valid vs what is not, when in the end I truly believe as I said before, the purpose of the Bridge and all the policy (‘tech”) supporting it is simply to keep you trapped.
-Peter-
May we all come to know the understanding you possess, thank you.

Thanks for the validation, dear Marco ; I understand you, I really do.

I had that exact response to the idea of studying LRH all over again when I realized how much I had been fooled by his exaggerated claims. Honestly, I even wanted to burn all my Scn books and lectures as it no longer represented what it once did. But then it hit me that in Science I had also found out how many alleged “discoveries” based on “standard” experimentation, were actually exaggerated claims by “scientists” only wanting to “be right” instead of discovering actual Truth. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are two of such examples. It would take me a 15-20 pages essay to explain why. I am a student (self-taught) of the history of science and mathematics , a subject that fascinate me even more than philosophy and religion. You wouldn’t believe how many errors and false assumptions many classical experiments have.

So I thought, what the hell, I immersed myself in this field of science which is also booby-trapped and so far have been able to filter the actual laws and workable principles from the mere assumptions and false axioms ; so, I might as well do that with Scn then. What did I have to lose ? It wasn’t like I was going to give up on my dream at ending this birth-death cycle for me ; coming back to play the being human game again was never part of my options ; not if I could avoid it. And Scn has been the subject that has approached that goal the most, even if is very far still from reaching it. So I already had a path ; a very booby-trapped one, yes ; but so was science as well and other religions. I then decided to study that path all over again from a completely different viewpoint, totally free from strict dogmas, fundamentalism, and robotism. And it has worked just fine for me so far. I have modified and altered the Tech as I see fit, and has become the biggest squirrel in existence, even bigger than Mayo and CBR. :-)))

One of these days when I become bored enough , I’ll publish something about it in the Net ; “Squirrel 101 , by Theta Clear”. :-)))
For sure, it will raise the hair of a LOT of KSW supporters.

But I fully understand that Scn can be overwhelming for many that have low tolerance for all the bullshit that it DOES contain. So, find another acceptable path for you. There is always a new path to follow ; that’s what life is all about.

Thanks Marildi ; I’ve actually throughly studied the materials , many of them 5-10x , for the last 12-15 years , and I have never ever in my track in Scn needed any help from the sup. Actually, it was me who had to be correcting many of them constantly and handling their misguided interference with an obvious F/Ning student. At the end, I just grew tired of it and studied outside of the academy. I was researching the Tech, not trying to accumulate student points. So , not trying to sound pretentious here, but I don’t think that I ever was like any of your students. :-)))

TC – so true about interference from Sups! I’ve observed Sups from missions to orgs to ASHO to Flag – and many of them simply don’t apply full study tech – ironic as that is. They overemphasize parts of it when they should be applying things like “evaluation of information,” etc. This particular area of the history of the organization has a large bearing on its downfall.

But anyway, if you run into difficulty, I could probably dig you out. 😀 :)))))

Peter, I’m not asking for that 15 to 20 page essay on how relativity and quantum mechanics theories are full of false discoveries and exaggerations by scientists using the standard scientific rigor. I only wish for you to give a couple examples of it. It’s the polite thing to do if you’re going to offer an argument that tarnishes the image of science methodology (calling it “booby-trapped”), that it may not shine too brightly in a comparison with scientology. 🙂

Oh, but he WILL receive it and you as well. Be patient, I always acknowledge and reply to my communications, but some of us actually have fo work to support themselves and don’t have time to be posting at blogs all day. I am not yet in the “ready to receive a pension” bracket.
:-)))

If they follow KSW then they regard the tone scale and the human evel tech (used in auditing & c/s’ing) as true and they follow the homophobic tech laid out by LRH. That is separate from ethics. It is integral to “programming a case”. That demands recognizing homosexuals as 1.1 and abberated.

“programming a case”
now that is a most interesting phrase. Did LRH use that wording?
Ballsie – to come right out and say that his church would “program” a person.
He was otherwise rather secretive then, about topics such as Scientology’s powers of hypnotizm, or how about tapping the sciences of mass mind control, manipulation and the like…he did use every trick in the book, invented a few new ones such as the eMeter.
I mean, the way I see it,
-LRH was de-programming his followers to get them first to abandon reason and then to adopt his newly fashioned reality. In other words, whether he called it as such or not, he would take an individual, remove his ability to rationalize and begin the process of Scientology, a process that could very well and aptly be described as:
programming a case.

Now hold on…
First, there is the scientific method of comparison.
Then there is the Scientology method of discarding comparison in order to accept only the single source of data, LRH.
…
Yes, thank goodness for the many paths to the truth.
….
But I can’t shut up there. I feel a need to scream. Instead I will try to speak concisely and then go quietly on my way, to say:
LRH was a wizard with the basics.
He was a master story-teller, and he could masterfully blur the line between truth and fiction. He loved to keep his audience engaged and before long became the master of mind manipulation and then the master of mind manipulation for larger and larger audiences. This was his life’s journey, defined.
Take a microscope to any part of tech and you will be able to find this connection.
That policy is there either to keep you trapped on the Bridge, or to protect the Bridge itself, as the primary order of business. That is the genius of LRH, that is the genius of his technology. Whatever benefits might be had from it are secondary but if you find them I sincerely hope you haven’t lost your family, your life’s pleasures and your money in the process.

Not necessarily, John. Even if they say that they follow KSW, the fact is that most of them don’t in that regard and in my other areas as well. As I said, I personally know a lot of them, and shunning others for their sexual preferences, or “handling” them in session to “modify” their “deviated behavior” , is something I have never seen any of them doing.

It is not true that Indies always stick to KSW ; believe me they do only as regards to auditing procedures and auditor training. Most of them leave Ethics alone unles a real PT situation is affecting a PC, and then they might use Ethics but not in any authoritarian way, but as a team activity with the agreement of the PC. I know the details, John. I know most of the delivery terminals and groups in the Indie field.

I’ll add to this. Yes my experience in the SO was that Ethics Officers and Execs hated gay people and god forbid it came up in auditing. The best you could expect was to be assigned confusion and a non stop harassment. Masturbation was also a massive button for them and you could expect lower conditions and severe loss of any privileges for doing that. I was force fed that fucking pain and sex policy letter over and over.

Scientology has the dubious distinction of being the MOST homophobic organization on earth by requiring 100% of their staff to be homophobic and 99% of their public to do the same. The 1% not holding this view are eventually discovered and unceremoniously tossed out.

Before Scientology, I was a practicing Catholic and I had a strong opinion that there was nothing wrong with any homosexuality or sex or love of any type between consenting adults. This was in spite of the Catholic Church’s official position. And, there were many, many Catholics that shared my “liberal” view. Here is Wiki snippet about homophobia and the Catholic church:

“Despite the official position of the Catholic hierarchy on LGBT rights, in some locations, such as North America, Northern and Western Europe, support for LGBT rights (such as same-sex marriage, or protection against discrimination) is stronger among Catholics than among the general population.”

Scientology is never going to change their mind on this subject and they are being “outed” at every corner….

Top Notch essay Mike Rinder.
It is vital the world know how utterly and absolutely homophobic Scientology is, while welcoming Gay Money to COUNSEL (audit) the Gay, to *un-gay* him.
In all the time I case supervised this, I never *Ever* saw a gay become *UN-GAY* even after spending high six figures and being made to feel guilty for their sex.
It is the absolute LIES and hypocrisy on the subject of homosexuality that is par for the course of Scientology Inc.
Read their babble of lies and denial
Excerpt:
“I don’t want any misunderstanding,” said Tommy Davis, a spokesperson for Scientology. “The church supports civil rights for everybody, regardless of sexual orientation, race, color or creed. We are a minority, too; we understand what it’s like to be persecuted, so to the extent that anything prohibits or inhibits on civil rights, we don’t agree with it.”

California (where many Scientologists live, including most of the celebrities) has outlawed gay cures, based on evidence that sexual orientation is inborn and cannot be “cured”. So, if anyone in Scientology tells someone that they can be cured through auditing, let the California Attorney General know.

“”” And let’s not forget that the words of L. Ron Hubbard in the eyes of scientologists may NOT be changed or even queried. Everything he says is accepted unthinkingly as truth. To doubt the veracity of his statements is to put yourself into a “lower condition” and be treated as an “enemy.” “”””

The above happens to be a church thing – a thing which week unable and low-tone staff members (just abut all of them including YOU as you are obviously STILL trying to portray that untruth ) ARE saying and using to BE SOMEONE !!!!

Shame on all the students and Pc’s who buy into that. – I never did which why I was an frequent OSA “visitor” since my very first days in Scientology . the phrase – “if he would NOT be so upstat we would declare him on the spot ” was used constantly from around 1990 by them and WSE ,and SMI and ….

just ask your old friend Kurt 🙂

LRH says the opposite and meant it : “if I see someone agreeing with me on everything I see a very sick person ” or ” i am source of the tech – you are source of using it ” or “whats true for you it true for you ”

or even ” I don’t want good boys ,…..

so, some of us actually GOT LRH – You and most of your people commenting just see words and significance and and LOVE to be victims -which happens to be lower than 1.1 and this is a good thing as it makes you only dangerous to yourself .

look, why , – why, are you trying so hard to make EVERYTHING bad ??

why is everyone with a win all of a sudden a sucker ??

well, it does NOT really matter – the only people you appeal to is victims :))

I assume your rambling diatribe is to express your view that you are homophobic? Or is it that you aren’t a homophobe? For a selhF proclaimed master of communication your Non sequitur babble doesn’t seem to have much point other than to call me a “victim”. Wow.

I know a Scientologist in the arts, still, in who works with gays. She doesnt believe all gays are 1.1. There are probably plenty of others.

I agree with Helmut on this ““if I see someone agreeing with me on everything I see a very sick person ” and I would like to thank him for bringing it up. I have read other such references.

For me, this is one of those areas in Scn that needs to really be looked into, but with a nut at the helm that aint likely to happen.

Mike, what you are doing more and more, is getting on the bandwaggon with all the other haters and bringing up the contentious issues, and really, when looked at in proportion to what is very workable in Scientology, it is a minor thing.

Have another look at the Grades processes some time, just the questions, and the potential of what they can do for people who are suffering, is very clear.

In my opinion, this is what should be concentrated on, not this constant harping on the same old outpoints, but it is your blog, to take in whatever direction you desire!

No, this is NOT a “minor thing”. What L. Ron Hubbard said is that “sexual perverts”, including all LGBTs, were either to be forced to conform to the heteronormative or be eliminated. This is part of your precious Tech, Penny.

Here’s a comparative statement, and, yeah, I’m going Full Godwin’s: the autobahns, the Me-109, and the Volkswagen Beetle were absolutely terrific, so let’s just ignore the whole Holocaust thing and recognize the Nazis for the good stuff.

It’s also your choice to stay and contribute or troll elsewhere (an outpoint is an outpoint, or didn’t you do the data series? Enough said)

Mike and the others here do fantastic work exposing Scientology for what it truly is. I’ve experienced the worst of it up close and personal, and the sooner it doesn’t exist the better off the world will be.

To be human… what a dilemma?
I see what you are saying Jenny and on the threat of being accused of advocating KSW – I agree that there is some good in scn, especially the grade process but some idiot went out of their way to kill that off and now there are so many supporters from both sides of the fence that all the hard work in that direction is now complete and it can now be considered a done – the grades are not available.
This blog has developed a life of its own and the winds of change and the effort to create an affect makes it just like all the rest.
You are a brave girl for speaking your mind, but scientology in both its organisational mindset and those that oppose it will never agree that you have that right to view it with a positive attitude concerning its application without severe control or condemnation, especially in an open internet forum.
Good luck to you.

Penny, if I see a person agreeing with everything I say, I do NOT see a sick person. I see a very intelligent person who I definitely want to be friends with. I’m surprised you don’t feel the same way since you use the term, “hater” in reference to those who disagree with you.

We are not Mike, Penny. We are us,
and I’d appreciate it if you would take what I say as my own origination and not something as something you have categorized in your mind as “what Mike has allowed past his moderation”.

Peter, let’s wait up on the Ignore 101 routine. Alanzo and Jane are dropping knowledge bombs on him, and there’s nothing I love more than some good fireworks and potential blackmail material. Let’s see who else knows him from their previous lives.

i’m lost too OSD.
funny, i was under the impression i had just thrown a pretty good sized cherry bomb into the hornets’ nest. Smart buggers, did you see Espi?
Hm. I mean, hum.

-As long as miss penny gets me. But you know what? I take it back. If i could just take down my note to penny and let her say whatever she wants, i think i would just to delete… i think something ThetaClear said is getting under my skin…

Hi mark marco, When a siprit is as sensitive and sweet as you,running after throwing a cherry bomb in the hornets’ nest is most appropriate! As for Penny I am sure she has an answer for us always,but I may not pick up the thread.Stardust,Ann.

Lol well OSD and mark, my statement saying well said applys to way up at the top, helmet ranting his nonsense. The other comment mostly got added before me. But they are good as well, I can go with the flow. 😉

It’s Allen Stanfield, the guy who stopped you from attacking that dentist, your own client, for not wanting his staff to put their names on the OCA tests you’d handed out to them.

I’ll never forget you standing up during that meeting with the veins popping out of your neck, pointing at the dentist and screaming at him and his staff, “You VEELL not change the PROGRAHM!! You VEELL NOT CHANGE THE PROGRAHM!!!”

Shoo Doggy!! You sure were hot to apply KSW that day on people who had no idea what you were talking about!

You fired me that day for defying you in front of your client. But I had no choice, you were embarrassing me by being so crazy. I was new in LA at that time. I thought you were just an aberration in the level of cray-cray of LA Scientologists. Unfortunately, I was wrong.

Helmut, SHAME on you. Shame. I remember you from my course room. I don’t know where you get off on being on a high horse about yourself or the tech. You could barely meter at all and were NOT a good auditor. Sorry to be harsh but it is true. Why don’t you try applying “LOOK DON’T LISTEN” and actually find out about LRH and the “tech” that you love so much. Also Being a bigot is SOOOOOOOO 1995. Trying coming up to present time.

Helmut, let me get this straight. Hubbard talked out of both sides of his mouth so that you could plausibly deny that he meant what he meant. You can deny that Hubbard demands that you apply the tech exactly standardly has he laid it out just because he made seemingly contradictory statements about self-determination. You can deny that “what’s true is what’s true for you” means and always meant that what’s allowably true for you is only that which is in agreement with Hubbard.

You can do all the pathetic hand-waving you want about the motives of Hubbard’s detractors, but the plain words of the master are indelible to history. Address that, if you dare. Is homosexuality sexual deviancy? How about bigamy, while we’re at it?

As you know, LRH wrote and said many, many things. And it is not unusual to find contradictions. What do you do when you encounter these contradictions?

It is all well and good to cherry-pick a quote from a lecture in the 50s, when LRH was feeling magnanimous, and say “See…this is Scientology.” It was only when the dust settled did we actually know what Scientology really was. Per LRH, standard tech is contained in HCO PLs and HCO Bs – period.

Whether you are card-carrying IAS member or an independent Scientologist, I think you’ll agree, that to call yourself a Scientologist you would be practising standard tech, no?

And per KSW #1, arguably the single most important policy letter written by Hubbard, you are expected to apply standard tech – exactly, without alteration. So, really there is no provisions for independent thought, or opportunities to reject pieces you don’t agree with – regardless if you are upstat or not.

So, what’s it going to be Helmut? Are you or are you not a Scientologist?

I am not a Scientologist. However, I was for 30 years.

I find it interesting that you chose to use the word victim, effectively a derogatory Scn term, to describe Mike and the posters on this blog. If you spent some time on this blog you would discover that most of the comments are expressions of viewpoints and opinions, and occasionally someone will recount some personal experience with the church where harm was done. If you label these folks as victims you are really missing the point.

That said, do not be discouraged in posting more often. “Being a victim” is not a prerequisite.

Also, the tapes, films and his books. And per references in THOSE items of standard tech everything Mike lists about LRH and his tech being homophobic is there. Why did you not list THOSE statpush? Is it because you lacked that data?

Not at all, John. Those references that Mike cited become part of standard tech, since they are directly referenced by HCOBs and PLs. If you recall, course checksheets are HCO PLs, which include specific books and lectures.

NOt really worth arguing over. Lectures are on courses too. And the briefing course, Class VIII course and Student Hat are just checksheets around lectures…. There is no distinction made between “tech” in lectures and “tech” in HCOB’s and books. Scientologists are just as convinced about the 3 barriers to study, described in those lectures as they are about anything described in HCOB’s.

You MUST be heterosexual, but you must not have sex that produces a child !

We are “pro-family” so long as Sea Org members do not have children !

If you do have a child, we demand that it get recruited for Sea Org Slave Labor.
And if you to whistle blow we will ensure your child disconnects from you and that a hate page full of lies is created about you !
This is how pro-family we are, we are the most pro-family Church on earth !

For proof of Thai very well written article you can see my blog for info on how I was treated I. The Sea Org and On the RPF for kissing another woman and liking it. This is one of the most evil aspects of Scientology. Their obsession with sex, who’s doing it, what are they doing and with whom. And their emphasis on “handling” gay people. 20 years later I am still figuring myself out.

Why wouldn’t we take Hubbard at his word? Dispose of them quietly without sorrow. Can’t really interpret that any other way than fix my kind or exterminate us. Seems absolutely clear to me. What a fucking humanitarian.

If I decide to get my pasty skin some sun and take a trip down to Barbados, I can get 25 years at hard labor if myself and another consenting gentleman decide to have some more private types of pleasure. They say that they don’t enforce the law, but it’s on the books and can be used. So I think it’s prudent of me to avoid Rhianna’s homeland until such time as change comes.

I can’t do anything about it since I’m not a citizen of Barbados. Nor can I do anything about the large Abrahamic religions, since changing their doctrine is the (no pun intended) moral equivalent of turning an filled-up oil tanker. But Scientology is something we can do something about, especially the Indies. Some of the Indies are aware that they’re on the wrong side of history and have changed (Dror Center, for instance). Some, though, are in the business of showing off how on-KSW they are compared to the cult. I have to assume that they’d want to slap a pink triangle on me and send me off to a concentration camp after they couldn’t Audit The Gay Away from me.

I reckon the use of ‘declares’ as they are performed by the Cof$ is a pretty damn good dramatization of getting rid of people, especially the finger pointing, no paperwork – “you’re declared!” It kills off families and other loyalties. In another time, this cult would degenerate to do the unthinkable without remorse.

I know of two SO who did take the “Pain and Sex” bulleting literally instead of figuratively. When the “Pain and Sex” bulletin came out, he took it to mean sex was bad and they shouldn’t be doing it. So he convinced his wife after she read the bulletin and they made a pact that they would not have sex any longer even though they were married. They wanted to “do what Ron said.” So he went so long without sex that he became impotent. He told me himself after he left the SO that he couldn’t get it up.

So he ended up leaving the SO and his wife stayed. HCO convinced her to disconnect from and divorce him, so she did. A few years after he was out of the SO he remarried. He convinced this woman that the “Pain and Sex” bulletin meant they would not be having sex. She agreed. After their wedding they went on a honeymoon. My friend asked me, “What do two celibates actually DO on a honeymoon?”

So if you couple that the no masturbating rule that the dwarf enforces, this guy had a real PTP.

Mike, In response to your last comment. You can’t count on dogma being interpreted the same in the future. That’s part of the problem with dogma. Compounding the situation: Scientology has never been fully safe pointed, in order to implement all of its IDEALS.

We in the Church of Scientology have isolated the “gay problem” to CC Int in Hollywood.
CC Int is the Rhodesia of Scientology so to speak.

While it is true that LGBT are 1.1’s we would of course never say this publicly. Our code word is “CC Int publics.”

If someone is LGBT outside of Hollywood, we in RTC prefer they remain closeted because, frankly, COB is squeamish about the whole… you know… the whole gay thing — except of course for the tight jeans and bicep-enhancing t-shirts he prefers to wear when hanging around with BFF Tom Cruise.

Finally, anyone making jokes about COB’s communicator Lou having short hair and looking like a boy will be beaten and sent to the RPF’s RPF’s RPF for all of eternity.

Yes, Scientology is deeply and severely homophobic, both in philosophy and practice. But it is worse still. From all I have seen and experienced, Miscavige is deeply anti-sexual, period. The only acceptable sex, really, is monogamous, heterosexual, missionary-position-only sex and then only minimally as required for procreation. Everything else has become “perverted”, 1.1, unethical and worthy of punishment and denunciation. SO members have become so paranoid that, even some years ago when I was in the SO, some would ask if it was OK to have oral sex (NO! – perverted!) or even if it was OK to have sex in the doggy position.

Once when I was in the RPF, I had to sec check, on video, with videos sent to Snr C/S Int office, a poor guy who was a network head in a PAC Org, and who was RPFed based on speculation that he might be gay and have some sort of gay attraction to his org’s ED, which thus caused him to be reasonable about alleged destructive post actions of the ED. This was all BS and he had no such thing going on, but still he had to stay in the RPF and do the whole program anyways.

whenever I meet or hear of anyone who’s *aggressively hetero* I really wonder about them. most people secure in their sexuality and who haven’t been twisted up inside by an upbringing that focused on sex (how to, who with, proper position etc) do not need to scream from the rooftops how straight they are (or gay they are or whatever iteration). I was raised no religion, and surrounded by people of all stripes and no real emphasis was placed on the specifics of sex aside from that I should be happy w who I was with, should be safe as far as diseases, and if i ever felt threatened or at risk of injury “kick ’em In the nuts” in the immortal words of my father. to me, this emphasis on proper sex, regarding position especially, is very weird and creepy. Particularly if it comes in the form of a religious leader or parent telling people this. EW!
whether or not DM is a very repressed homosexual or not is not really the issue. whatever his preference is, I’m sure it’s surrounded by the aura of power and domination and is probably uncomfortable as hell for his partner. and he probably likes it that way. gross.

I would reckon that to be in bed with miscavige… (perish the thought) would result that sleeping would be the last thing you would consider doing.
How do you come up with such scenarios? Watch too much free to air TV perhaps?

I’m with you there. But I bet part of the reason he won’t let Shelly out of whatever hole he has her in is because if she ever came to tell her story everyone would hear about his proclivities. And when Lou falls out of favor (not if, WHEN ) she’ll be locked up too. I bet he likes to do it on the old man’S desk in the offices they have set up for him when he comes back.

My only other thought is that THANK GOD Miscavige has never had children. That’s the one saving grace of whatever his sex life is like, he’s followed the SO directive. It does make me wonder how many abortions Shelly/Lou were/are being forced to have. Or since he doesn’t seem to have a drop of human feeling, maybe he can’t even get it up. 😉

A die hard Kool – aid drinker will have more
chains to pull than Marley’s ghost.

David Miscavige is NO LEADER of any kind,
he is an example of the worst of the worst
in any category or subject.
Naturally he gets his cookies off on sex stories
of SCN celebrities and top management while guzzling scotch.

Leahs book is available in Hardcover on amazon—TROUBLEMAKER
I would read that to form an opinion, tell all your family, friends.

There seems no reason not to take L. Ron Hubbard literally when he talks about the disposal, without sorrow, of those deemed to be at 1.1 on his arbitrary Tone Scale. In the context of his wider Scientology writings, particularly those concerning the imposition of totalitarianism upon wog world, a literal interpretation seems the most accurate. And then there’s the whole “Word Clearing” aspect. Unless. a person agrees with each of Scientology’s “teachings”, they are required to go over and over the material, word-by-word (which is the very definition of “literal”) looking for their MUs until such time as agreement is reached.

For those with something of a grave-yard humour, there are plenty of lulz to be had when considering Dianetics and the “facts” contained therein. For example, lets not forget how L. Ron Hubbard’s “modern science” details how “sexual perverts”, including homosexuals, are created. According to Dr Hubbard . . .

. . . To make a pervert is, rather, something on the order of kicking a baby’s head in, running over him with a steamroller, cutting him in half with a rusty knife, boiling him in Lysol, and all the while with crazy people screaming the most horrifying and unprintable things at him . . .

. . . although it is, surprise surprise, I’m left a little confused. Is Dr Hubbard here referring to the person committing or receiving such abuse as the one more likely to become the “pervert’? Seems more likely that the author is the pervert, if you ask me.

Exactly. Maybe it is bc I’ve never been a Scientologist but I have read Dianetics. Know your enemy. Anyway, the thing that immediately struck me about the book was how much it revealed about Hubbard and his sick, deranged mind.

Re your last question, it is the one who is receiving the abuse that is going to become the pervert. Because of all the engrams received during said abuse you see. Yes, makes total sense. smh

I was explaining OTIII to my MD earlier this week and he reckons he’s slept with Xenu. A five in a bed romp, no less. He was curious as what the Co$’ reaction would be if that ever came up in auditing?

Two levels of response. 1) From the “Case Supervisor” view, whatever the patient (PC or preclear) says in session about their “case” (false memories they dream up) is to be respected and allowed and NOT ivalidated. 2) Disgraceful admissions are filed in Office of Special Affairs for future legal and not to subtle blackmailing on the member to keep them from future speaking out in any way.

As an ex member, I urge the MD, to read the few sentences in Marty Rathbun’s 3rd book, where Rathbun tells of the Hubbard “Farsec” past space civilization race of psychiatrists from whom your MD obviously was one in that MD’s past lives!

If a man who invents the Fair Game policy, R2-45, a Chinese Communist style thought reform hard labor camp called the RPF, etc etc talks about the societal benefits of the sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale and eliminating them quietly and without sorrow then you’re God damn right I’m going to take him literally. Scientologists, indie and corporate would be wise to as well.

Can you imagine the hell Hubbard and his minions would of unleashed on S Africa had he been successful in his take over of that country? Just think about the suffering he managed to inflict on thousands all over the Western democratic world thanks to the religious protections he hid behind. Now imagine if Hubbard and his alter ego, Scientology, were completely unrestrained by civilized law and were answerable to no one. Chilling isn’t it?

Thanks anyway Mike, I will take Hubbard’s statements in SoS as literal admonitions. If I was a Scientologist, doing anything else would make me a squirrel wouldn’t it?

When people ask me if Scientologists are homophobic, I tell them no – they’re homo-hateful. I know it’s the same thing, but homo-hateful is a more truthful statement in my experience. And it’s not just the top management. His “leadership” has trickled down the ranks as demonstrated here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U67YN16v-po

The question asked is too simplistic. But, the answer lies in the technology. Per the Scientology technology, homosexuals are dangerous, covertly hostile criminal types that ideally, would be at LEAST segregated from pro survival people. At worst, liquidated.

THAT is what the technology and philosophy of Scientology demands.

One can decide from that if scn is homophobic…

ANYONE who has studied scn enough to comment who denies the above is an apologist for a criminal philosophy and the criminal LRH.

The hallmark of most of scientology is ‘judgmental’, making conclusions about someone based on something hubbard wrote and then taking it as a ‘that is the way it is’.

Now, if you strictly follow hubbard’s write ups you have also the criminal mind, which states you accuse others of what you are doing. So, why miscavige keeps accusing others of homosexuality? Maybe he should answer the question himself.

There were fads of Hubbard’s leniency, or Hubbard’s understanding “case supervision” “tech” (Hubbard’s pseudo-therapy/exorcism views and writings and techniques to rid people of their mental/spiritual faults) view of everyone, include the LBGT people who DID absolutely join as pc/patients/spiritual seekers and who even rose to high ranks, approved for their high positions even by Hubbard himself (John McMasters, and people’s whose names aren’t known but who held top jobs like Commodore’s Staff Captain, FSO Qual Sec, Class 12 FSO auditor are three high positions I later learned were all LBGT personnel that Hubbard knew and authorized for their high positions). Under Hubbard’s full “case supervisor” “tech” thinking, anyone’s “case” would be dealt with using Hubbard’s auditing (pseudo-therapy/exorcism) and he thus allowed people around him near the top, to possess even these LBGT “case” inclinations.

Homophobia is endemic to scn, being in the local org was like being back at school with the constant references to fags and homos. Clearly the policy has filtered down through the entire organization. I wouldn’t say that all homosexuals I’ve met have been great people but there is certainly a balance just like the rest of society. One of my best friends at college was blatantly gay but also one of the most talented and fun people I have met.

It just isn’t funny.
In fact, it is very revealing how Hubbard categorizes the human form, to the point of being able to say very un-human things like, “the sudden and abrubt deletion of all individuals…”.
(how did I forget reading that, like 40 years ago?…really, I reccollect now, but, how did I forget?)
This church keeps on proving itself to be worse than the imaginable.
Seriously, indeed. No joke appropriate inserted here, instead I just gotta quote Mac:
Holy shit.

Didn’t someone issue certain blankets infected with disease to the Indians. Plus after Custer got his… the Indian problem became a military issue rather than a political one, no more treaties. Settling problems down with eliminating the complainers is well practiced in history. The disappearance of the Tasmanian aboriginal for example is a particularly disgusting use of that kind of response to a problem.
Scientology didn’t invent it, he just wrote it down on paper.

Ooooh I did forget Andrew Jackson. Ever notice in the older history books (like up until 10 or so years ago) all battles the American military won were ‘battles’ and if the Indians won it was a ‘massacre’. That was some nice pr work. Thank god dm isn’t in charge of a military or a country.

Oh yeah! Andrew Jackson. The Indian Removal Act was passed under his presidency.
When one looks at what really happened in history and some of the solutions decided upon by “civilised” leaders, it makes one wonder just what the word civilised actually means. I think it means to be superiorly organised and/or better weapons. Same brutality goes on but also better at hiding it.
You’re right PR has many uses. But miscavige in charge of troops? Can’t think with that.

I shudder to imagine if was. Then we’d be discussing actual extermination and war crimes rather than crimes against humanity. Hey there’s something nice we can say about him – he hasn’t ordered any deaths. That we know of. Sheez.

There have been great Instagram posts re Columbus Day going around (speaking of IRA), my fav so far has been – since it’s Columbus Day does that mean I can go into someone’s house and tell them to leave, that it’s mine now? (Paraphrased) and ‘does that mean I can just walk into a store and take what I what?(also paraphrased). Hahaha!

Do you think there is any way that John Travolta could be influenced today, but any of his non Scientology friends, to help snap John out of John’s comfy celebrity berth cacooned still in the Scientology “star” celebrity ranks?

“It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line…….or simply quarantining them from the society”.

Is Hubbard saying the goal of clearing the planet is really not needed? Is he saying it would be much easier to kill off all those who are below the tone level of 2.0 than to try to clear every person on earth?
Or moving all below 2.0 to some god forsaken place on earth where they would never come close to society at large? Oh yes we could audit them….I wonder which avenue Hubbard would personally choose if no money was involved? After all he did seem to like the idea of killing off all the lepers.

I pretty much agree with everything said here. However having been in the Sea Org for nearly 25 years there were from my experiences a fair amount of gays and lesbians that were SO members. Some of them even worked fairly closely with LRH, Mike I’m sure you can recall some of whom I’m referring to.

They were really some of the best, sadly most dedicated to Hubbard, and they were hopeful that the techniques (pseudo-therapy/exorcism) would relieve themselves, so that doubly stuck/sticks them hopefully to the techniques and wished for results.

There was a former “Commodore’s Staff Captain” old boss post of the Commodore’s Staff Aides 1-7 in the pre WDC pre Exec Strata top management setup, there was a former Class 12, former FSO Qual Sec, I knew of.

But I had no idea back when I was an underling that they were LGBT, and when I did hear of some public, like Michael Pattinson being gay, his book is online and well worth reading for the failure of Hubbard’s techniques to dent a person’s LGBTness, I always liked and respected all concerned simply on the strength of their personalities and behavior which I admired and respected for their playing by the then rules.

Outside LBGT strategist thinking people ought advise John Travolta, I think, on how to come out, and come out of Scientology, I think they’d likely be the best at helping the deeply stuck in LBGT Scientologists the best with advice, I think today.

People have been there done that more freely and their advice will always be better. I wonder what Haggis’ daughters think of how John Travolta ought to “come out” all the way out of Scientology.

I remember he was “handled” (rumors were that he was gay, all because of the way he dressed in flamboyant colors).

That was in 1987-88, ASHO and AOLA.

It is nauseating how awful this group is. Way to go L. Ron Hubbard. Way to pick up the ball and run with it King Rat you big bully a-hole.

This type of reporting fuels my courage to tell people one-on-one about what happened to me, my sister, my family – to push people to read Going Clear, see the movie, ask me questions…I’m an open book to everyone that knows me about what happened just to little ol’ me. I was about as important as the copyright symbol at the bottom of the org board but I saw more than people realize from a completely different point of view. I’m no celebrity, I’m not famous and I did not hold an important post really.

I once got a phone call from a Sea Org recruiter and she asked me a bunch of questions. One of them was if I was gay. I am gay but I said no and asked why and she kind of hesitated on what to say and then said “We… just want the best people… you understand?” I’m sure that was part of a list of requirements to joining the Sea Org that she was reading off of. The other questions were about psych drugs, SPs, things like that. So yeah, Scientology is definitely homophobic.

So much for present time and scientologists – those two things just don’t go together.

But the next paragraph below says it all for me – the one thing that is constant in life is change. If you can’t think with and adopt change with a piece of information as you get older, you have no right forcing it on another, well said Mike:

“And let’s not forget that the words of L. Ron Hubbard in the eyes of scientologists may NOT be changed or even queried. Everything he says is accepted unthinkingly as truth. To doubt the veracity of his statements is to put yourself into a “lower condition” and be treated as an “enemy.”

Interesting that I remember in a Nov 1952 tape Hubbard said about the Axioms and Logics, “I give you data for data’s sake and my opinion of the data is literally worthless to you…”
Is that right, well… WTF happened???

I don’t think I’ve heard that tape but my guess would be that he was saying “It doesn’t matter what my opinion of this [data] is – it’s true, period.” This IS one of the key traps that keeps people “in”. He says over and over in different ways that he isn’t just inventing stuff or dreaming it up on the hoof (perish the thought), no, as “Source” – he is the conduit of divine truth and that therefore everything He says is sacrosanct, ergo it must be taken literally and applied precisely etc etc. Once you buy into that thought process, it’s hard to untangle yourself from it. All cults have this in common to some degree, although some are more overtly of the “because ____ Guru says it’s true, and since he is a derivative of God, therefore it’s true”. Hubbard didn’t claim to be God, (Buddha maybe) but he DID very cleverly position himself as some on who had a unique and unquestionable link to natural universal truth.

If I recall correctly there were 4 tapes in that series called the Perception of Truth in the marketing of it. Just before he wrote Scn 8-8008 and then went to Philly to do the PDC (good God, how do I remember such things?)
I found the data “interesting and logical” I liked it but you are right, there’s a repeating trap in there throughout all the tech if you are not careful of “trust me,” I’m source. Around that time or just before on the Professional Course, you had to know the Logics & Axioms verbatim to make the grade and pass the course. That is some mighty potent ‘mind grooming.’
It just strikes me as amazing that as soon as that data got anywhere near group application it subtly changed character to something hypocritical to its own aims. I do think the SO was Hubbard’s biggest stuff up, or maybe it was intended to introduce a military type, yes sir, no sir scenario above, beyond and around the technology and its application.
Military think is a type of successful implant, very useful at times and increases your chance of surviving conflict. It’s proudly patriotic in the right circumstances but as to a religion, well… the proof is in the pudding – it resulted in a cult! run by a particularly nasty & moronic asshole.

Sex is a great example of how Hubbard took away the proper context of sex, and created another context, to thoroughly confuse the Scientologist and make them unable to understand and appreciate their own existence.

If we are thetans, and MAN IS NOT AN ANIMAL!!!, then engaging in any sexual activity is “aberrated” and a part of the “downward spiral”. This is the perverted context that Hubbard gave Scientologists to understand human sexuality with.

But if we are human beings, which are animals, then like every other multi-celled living thing on Earth, besides earthworms and a few other species, we engage in sexual reproduction. And why do we engage in sexual reproduction? For 4rth dynamic reasons – the furtherance of the species.

See? Hubbard couldn’t even get the proper dynamic right for “2nd dynamic activity”.

And just as every biological expression within any species, there are variations of sex and human sexuality – all very natural. And “good”. And human.

One way to make a person misunderstand themselves and unable to use good judgment, or just become a crazy fucking loon who can’t understand and confront their own existence and thus, much easier to control, is to hide or pervert the context in which that person actually exists.

On the subject of the species of human beings, L Ron Hubbard was one of the most perverted people I have ever come across.

If Hubbard knew the proper context of sexuality in human existence, then he was evil to change it on Scientologists and to use it against them.

If Hubbard truly believed the contradictory mess that he wrote about human sexuality in Scientology, then he was crazy.

Right on, Al. What a confused mess he created. First you lay out the dynamics, and tell people Scn can help you survive better across the dynamics – including the second dynamic. To a normal person that would mean: great marriage, great sex and wonderful children. Then you tell them the true origins of Sex and how its all an evil trap. WTF??

Hubbard’s ideal “human” must have been a doll body or a eunuch 🙂

For nearly 40 years he claimed to produce superhumans or homo novis. Obviously that never happened. Instead, he developed a doctrine which made “being human” an undesirable condition.

The more ‘overts’ (sins) you create, the more ‘guilt’ you have with which to manipulate people. The threat of using this ‘overts’ against a person (humiliation, black PRing, Comm Evs etc) is also used to introvert and to have the person in a more malleable state.

Besides that, I think that Hubbard was dramatizing his own issues and forcing his own case on others.

If those fools ever want to say Scientology is not anti-gay, I have a Comm Ev issue and SP declare (in my hand) that I received for kissing a girl (I am a female). It is the only reason I was SP declared.

Go figure? Right?
I was a Sea Org member, a trained C/S (OT Elig C/S for ASHO), GAT Flag trained Class VI and OT V. I guess all that combined I should have not had any such tendencies? (year was 2004)
I have no idea.
And JT has, over the years, from his celeb status, brought people in and so they overlook that? Only a guess.
My only conclusion is some people are more equal than other people.

Hubbard would agree with that. He knew of no equal to his knowledge, but he says others are wiser but stated he has travelled more road, whatever the fuck that really means?Although you can do precious little about it except maybe earn more money or perhaps worship violence, there will always be a pecking order, always!
I think there is some good gear in amongst this auditing business, but I don’t pitch myself against others, never have since I left the church but I cringe when I see groups or people rip each other apart to make a point about a technology they themselves can’t, aren’t experienced in or don’t know how to apply. I scratch my head with, why bother in such a game?
I personally think there’s value in your ability to CS & audit. Many will disagree but they play a game I’m not interested in playing. I’ve been in many a situation where the person beside me is willing to share their last cigarette or their last swig of water and that is amazing affinity. I didn’t like being in such crap situation but shit, boy, was I alive. Same sort of scenario in the auditing chair, it’s a good game to get right. Pity the Bridge was bobby trapped in the OT band.
Please don’t invalidate your abilities, especially because of some group consensuses. Having someone slap you on the back and consider you a friend is an wonderful experience, but it’s a rare commodity.
Scientology as a group activity just can’t seem to help itself, it just fucks things up! And this subject of sexual preference – geezers, what a minefield!

John T is WAY more equal than any other every-day scn-gist.
The only rich and famous actor more equal than him would have to be Tom, thanks to his lovey-dovey special love-triangle he’s got going with the leaders, L. Ron and the overlord of human self-love personified, David Miscavige. Just doesn’t get more equal than that.

Hey Mike lets not gloss over this little beauty from the joberg. It appears its an overt for a white man to sleep with a black woman or vice versa. So homosexual hate AND racism. This line from the joburg deserves its own post. And just in case anyone reading this thinks its jot true it is 100 percent accurate. Ibwas there in the sea org. Mike is quoting hubbard 100 percent.

“Have you ever slept with a member of a race of another colour? So that’s in a confessional! Which means its an overt.”

No, it means the PC CONSIDERS it an overt. The whole idea of a confessional is to relieve the pc of what he is withholding because that will lessen his responsibility and his reach. Yes, confessionals have been used for other purposes, but that was not there original intent.

Yeah, except that question is suggestive, and within the context of a sec check can prompt a feeling a guilt that maybe wasn’t there in the first place.
Kind of sick , in my book.
No argument with the beneficial aspect of a confessional.

Someone over at ESMB did a great expose once on the fact Hubbard never researched for and deployed a process for above 2 on the tone scale while developing processes to handle the R6 bank. It’s all about being opposed and what not. The other flow about being happy about things and game-man-ship was apparently ignored for the negative. I suppose havingness was the closest thing to good times.
It’s all too serious… another aspect of the dual nature of scientology, don’t be serious and lightness of organisation etc. sort of caved the whole thing in.

So, in other words, you’re justifying sec checking. The last person to justify religious interrogation was Tomas de Torquemada. First the e-meter, then, if something reads, the thumb screws, with a nice session on the rack for afters.

Espiando, I was talking about confessionals, which came before sec checks. Confessionals were originally intended for the sole purpose of relieving a person of his own emotional charge and guilt. They were for the benefit of the pc, and that was all there was to it. At the end of the confessional, the auditor stated to the pc what was called the “Proclamation of Forgiveness” – and there were no reports sent to Ethics. No “handling” was necessary as the pc had been forgiven.

As a person raised Catholic, it would be hypocritical of me to condemn the Sacrament of Confession per se. It’s what Scientology does with the concept that drives it into condemnation. The notes from those confessionals still exist in the PC folder, and we’ve all seen what they’ve done with those. However, I know that you condemn the use of PC folder information for Dead Agent purposes, so I’m definitely not accusing you of being part of this abominable practice.

tl;dr: Confession is good for the soul, but it’s not necessarily good for the thetan.

The SO members I was around were the most homophobic people I witnessed anywhere in the world that I’ve been.
Intolerant, vicious, “holier than thou”. What were probably well intentioned individuals have been totally perverted by a brain washing, vindictive so called religion.

Hi GBTO, Yes that was definitely pervasive throughout the SO.Those of us that started to see behind and beyond the veil,were punished always.Vicious is a good starting point for that mind set.Love,Ann.

All I can add to this revealingly accurate post is my own experience. I got into the cult in the mid 70’s at a mid-sized mission in a very conservative part of the USA. There were a couple of openly gay public taking courses. They seemed to be tolerated fairly well because they had money and were contributing to the ‘stats’. But, they were constantly ridiculed behind their backs. I believe that would be about 1.1 on Hubbard’s tone scale. That was the public. As for staff, on of the EDs had some history of homosexual acts that were somewhat generally known about. When the ‘coup of 82’ came along, he was one of the few who stood up to the storm troopers (Finance Police) and was removed from post promptly. Sadly, he got ‘handled’ somewhere along the line and as far as I know is still in as a public member and did some OT levels. I guess those ‘handlings’ that he received must have cured him. Riiiiiiiight… Only 50 to 200 or so hours to ‘handle’ this perversion? I would bet big money that this guy had easily that many hours in sec checks alone.

Slightly off topic, I have to add that people of color received the same ridicule behind their backs. The mission was a very white bread sort of place. Again, anyone was ‘welcome’ if they had money, but there was always the covert whispering behind their backs if they were different in some way. The ridicule always came from staff, not other public. Staff, even at the mission level, always exuded an air of superiority because they were more ‘on purpose’ than the mere public that contributed to their meager pay check.

Hi Ms B.Haven,Your post said it all! Yes staff and Sea Orgers could really throw that Superiority around! Did that myself for awhile!But that was not me,in my soul,so I stepped aside and let those who wanted to keep the superiority thing going,have at it.I just wanted to fulfill what I thought was my mission back then.Clear the planet and put Ethics in on the Universe!Am I ever grateful I fled the cult!Always, Ann.

And then, in a flaming example of the First Law of Scientology Contradictions where for Every Bit of Policy and Tech there is an Equal and Opposite bit of Policy and Tech we have “2nd Dynamics Rules” where L Ron Hubbard, the author of all that idiocy about sex above, also writes this in HCO PL of 11 August 1967:

“It has never been any part of my plans to regulate or attempt to regulate the private lives of individuals.

“Whenever this has occurred, it has not resulted in any improved condition.”

….

“I have no concern about the second dynamic activities of Scientologists save only where they bring suffering to others and so impede our forward progress.

“Therefore: ALL FORMER RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES RELATING TO THE SECOND DYNAMIC ACTIVITIES OF STUDENTS, PRECLEARS, STAFF AND SCIENTOLOGISTS ARE CANCELLED.”

Scientology: where plausible deniability works not only for the press and the police, but for the inside of your own mind, as well, if you find yourself needing to defend indefensible yet again.

Great post Mike. I always found lrh’s writings on homosexuality to be hateful, ‘reactive’ and bigoted.

Commenting on a side not you made: I prefer alcohol way more than marijuana. But I would be the first to say, marijuana is way safer than alcohol. When I was “in”, I definitely didn’t see this pot datum being applied.

I think there is still a lot of debate on the pot vs. alcohol debate (I am against neither).
Today’s marijuana is much stronger (purer, if you will) than the pot you and I (well, me anyway) smoked in college.
And, I believe that it is a gateway drug to stronger stuff. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of any addict who said ‘I started with heroin’ (though I am sure there are a few who did).

I have two teens and two pre-teens, so I have been to more meetings and read more studies on addiction than I have ever wanted to, not to mention my own research outside of what I have learned through the schools.

Sorry, did not mean to derail the conversation into a pot v. booze discussion. Both have their place and it’s unfortunate they are abused, but every recent study/report I have read indicates pot is not necessarily a ‘safe’ alternative to alcohol.
Though it sure is fun…..and something David Miscavige desperately needs to try

Because if you punched the dwarf back, yes, you’d break the dwarf, but the dwarf’s 20 goons standing around would then break you, and you’d be condemned (as you believe) to eternity in pain, fear and darkness. That’s that Ben Carson nonsense: “why didn’t they just rush the shooter? Why didn’t the Jews stand up to Hitler?” It’s victim-blaming, the purpose of which is to give you an excuse not to emphasise.

Thanks, Mike, for taking the time to assemble all this damning information and to put it forward so clearly and forcefully. I think this essay will stand as the final word on the institutional homophobia of this organization.

As for Dave Miscavige, I suspect that personal anecdotes about his vile character will continue to accumulate as he continues to slide into impotent rage and, increasingly, irrelevance.

How can Scnists claim to hold the keys to a happy marriage and the raising of children, when their founder’s written words and the group’s policy and behavior on the second dynamic are so thoroughly twisted?

Serious, while reading Hubbard’s Pain and Sex, it is clear the old man had issues on the subject. One thing you can say, he isn’t covertly hostile on the second dynamic – he’s overtly hostile! Oddly enough, a Scnist would find that an improvement, since it is higher on the Tone Scale.

Could it be that having a healthy, active second dynamic, one that the individual enjoys spending time creating, is seen as a potential threat to the Almighty Third Dynamic?

One quickly learns that the Third Dynamic is THE most important dynamic. And there really is only one Third Dynamic, that of the church of Scientology. Vying for top dynamic position is the 9th dynamic, money. Unfortunately, any Third Dynamic is composed of a bunch of First Dynamics (you know, aberees, broken straws, DBs). But, Scn can “fix” them, provided they turn over their money and wear the mental straitjacket.

So, if we walk the straight and narrow, do what Hubbard and the church says, then maybe…just maybe, one day…

I always found it most odd that Clear #1, John Macmaster, was clearly gay. As was Hubbard’s son, Quentin. They were also two of the most gentle and kind human beings I ever met. I can only wonder at how Hubbard dealt with that internally.

Hi thegman77,Very good to see your post here.I have read all the posts to Mike’s powerful post,which was not available to me until this AM.Something blocked it,so I came to yours and here I am.I had some wonderful letters to and from John McMaster in 74.I was frightened that I could not last in the Sea Org having only DMSMH as my guide.But now I know that book had already set my hook! But John was so good to me with encouragement and support.It mattered not one iota whether he was gay or not.And Quentin was so very sweet and gentle and Funny! Could he make me laugh! I see now that when I signed that billion year contract,I signed my spirit or thetan as one will,I bound my soul to Ron’s as a soul slave.I was not free,I would never be free again,until I blew and even then nightmares will come now too.My own way of looking now,is much more simple.Is the person I am comming with a pure soul or a black soul? Yes it is hard to know and I got really tripped up with this with GO/Intel,but my heart tells me to trust what I know instinctively about some one.Ron/David it is all about their command and control pain and suffering they both dole those out via the tech that always works absolutely.So Indies and all I grant you your viewpoint.But once you have been thrown on the Sea Org fire or shoved under the Sea Org bus for being loving and sensitive and kind,you will feel differently forever after.All love to you,Ann.

Hi Mike,Well if I can un-mix my mind,knowing how I screw stuff up,he may have passed in 74. But the John who wrote me and because I had gotten some old old time Dianetics people to write me,he wrote about early Ron.I believe he wrote me from South Africa.Don’t shoot,I’m just a lowly messenger! Plus I know there can be duplicates or doppelgängers,amongst the persons I wrote to.Love,Ann.

Twisted policy bred by the man’s twisted behavior.
Then walks in MacCavige, the dick.
Sorry, Mike, that you had to describe his vulgar attacks and antics. Sure, it demostrates his sick
-nesses.
But, and who was the young beauty here that said, incredibly, a word of compassion for the man?
Aquamarine, if memory serves, said there was a way he could still, maybe, earn a pass.
Alanzo, now I remember. How beautiful is that?
But to stir up the hatred, the utter total repugnancy for the noun/person, well, I fear it just lends him, the dude, more power than he deserves.
After all, the more accurate measure would name him a zero, a solid zero. Sure, you can go lower, but what’s the point?
Once you start hurting people you are a zero.
If you take pleasure in it then your end is literally written in stone, and it will not be pleasant.
It is unavoidable.
And therefore nothing to be getting the girls upset over. I am reassured every time I see this Dave guy pull another boner. All the credit for every evil deed this church is responsible for can be rightly attributed to him.
So he gets mad and ugly when you call him out on it.
Mad and ugly is what school kids can do, giving it their best.
Which is all the power and juice this so-called leader can give, demonstrate to the universe.
You and me are are ten or even a hundred times the power.
If you take pleasure in watching his demise I invite you. It is happening. And I agree, it is indeed a beautiful day. Glad to say the beauty of it has nothing to do with a ignorant man who fell down and ate his way through the ground to where he is now, a place much like the place he will be buried in, the worm. I just said that to end this on a up-note. True-mm

thanks Ann. i actually threw that in extra just for you, (choke) i feel like a crook stealing a smile from you so easy, but wait it gets worse-
no control and the anti panic button went out and i have little choice but to write again
[insert blushing smile here, please]

A concrete bunker, bullet proof glass, 24/7 security, a 45 under the pillow. That self restraint isn’t exactly 100% self. That little twerp knows exactly what will happen to him if he lets his guard down. It’s pretty much just him and his security at Int now anyway from what I can make out. Anyone with any gumption was disposed of sometime ago.

Hi Chee Chalker, I was looking for your post and here it is! Made me happy to find you.I agree 100% with your post.David Miscavige seems to delight in engaging his SO Slaves in all sorts of bs and constant taunting and make wrong.I have wondered too what it would take for someone to say Enough! But David is no fool by surrounding himself with his private security force.Also I surmise the SO is so worn down and out by him they can’t see straight.And he knows that.Really a terrible “leader” of the cult.All Love,Ann.

While that may be true, there is the other side to the coin; this scared little boy, by whatever means, has managed to hold oversight on a burgeoning real estate empire and as such, don’t think for a moment that he has not already locked in multiple safety-net locations in various far away lands.

Heck, good chance he is already operating form one of them (the new X?).

While you all ponder that, chew well and then swallow this; at some point, and here is my written prediction, Tiny Boots will eventually and quite intentionally leak to the kool-aid crew that due to the extreme expansion, the kick-back from the SP’s is so extreme that he has had to get fabian, as in “at times of war the fleet is at sea, whereabouts unknown”. The remaining sheeple will literally drop to their knees at the action-hero like maneuvers of dear leader, and then we will see them all pull out all the remaining hidden money that the cherch had not yet gotten. All the while, the rest of us, the media, and the world will see that he fled with everything and yet the still-ins will see it as a strategic move to protect the expansion.

Am I new here?

Nope. Do a whole bunch of you know who I am? Yup 🙂

Just been UTR for….years…still-in, taking copious notes, and here is one for tiny boots: the enemy is IN YOUR CAMP LITTLE BITCH, I’LL BE IN THE ORG ON COURSE TODAY, BETTER GO SEC CHECK EVERYBODY, AT LEAST ONE OF THEM IS A sneaky little phuq…!

Plausible scenario that.
I’m kind of hoping he does a Sultan Griss type thing and simply fucks it all up.
Or made found in a ditch beaten to death… but Christmas isn’t for awhile yet.
Stay hid, oh strange one, still attached.

Oh rest assured, nothing would make me happier but for Tiny Boots, this play would stretch his status out longer, let him overtly gather his booty and clear it to a safe location, undisclosed of course, and he could literally still be SOB even after having raided the coffers and strip-mined the parishioner base; if he goes that route, ya gotta tip your cap to the deviousness of the little snake!

Well I figured early on that staying hidden behind enemy lines would be more fruitful in the direction of imploding it than one more guy “out” and just getting 3-P’ed into the ground. Plus, I am taken LRH advise, he says words to the effect of filling a file cabinet with all the dirt, etc. Well, gathering all the dirt is much easier from within…good times ahead if they even make the mistake of coming for me or anyone who I have granted allegiance to…

Trackbacks

[…] known as much for its history of torturing members, denying the ill life-saving medicine, demonizing homosexuality, stalking their enemies, and covering up sexual assault as it is for its looney intergalactic […]

Important Quotes

If the org slumps during this transition period, don't engage in "fund raising"
or "selling postcards" or borrowing money. Just make more income with Scientology.
L Ron Hubbard From HCOPL URGENT ORG PROGRAMMING

"We own a tremendous amount of property. We own a tremendous amount of material and so forth, and it keeps growing.
But that’s not important. When buildings get important to us, for God sakes, some of you born revolutionists will you please blow up central headquarters".
L Ron Hubbard Lecture 31 Dec 1960

"Personal integrity is knowing what you know. What you know is what you know and to have the courage to know and say what you have observed".- LRH from Personal Integrity

"It is necessary to happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists of professing to believe what he does not believe." Thomas Paine

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” - Martin Luther King

“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” - Martin Luther King

“There comes a time when silence is betrayal.” - Martin Luther King Jr.

“Communication is the universal solvent” - L Ron Hubbard

“When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.” Thomas Paine

"Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world would do this, it would change the earth." William Faulkner

"The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual's own reason and critical analysis." Dalai Lama